The funding threshold for Internal Connections remains at 85%. No Internal Connections funding will be available below 70%. The availability of funding for applicants in the 70-84% range is still uncertain, although funding requests in this range are currently being reviewed by the SLD.

A small wave (or “ripple”), designated 30C for FY 2002 was released on Tuesday, October 28. It included funding for 87 applicants totaling $7.6 million. Funding data for Wave 30C is now available on the SLD Web site.

Chapter 1 – Application: In FY 2001, a school district filed a Form 471 containing two funding requests for Internet service, one for the basic access service and a smaller one for the maintenance charge on the ISP’s router. The district assumed the router should be considered an integral part of the Internet service but, because of the varying treatment of Internet routers over the years under the SLD rules for Priority 1 on-premise equipment, the maintenance charge was filed for separately.

Lesson 1: As a general rule, if an applicant is not sure whether a specific component of a service is eligible, or whether that component can be included in a certain funding category, the best approach is to request funding for each portion of the service in a separate FRN. This is particularly true if the questionable portion represents 30% or more of the total service cost. If the SLD finds an error of more than 30% in an applicant’s request, it will deny or reclassify the entire FRN. Separating a request into two or more component parts, therefore, can isolate the risk of a 30% or greater filing error on the questionable portion.

Chapter 2 – Decision and Appeal: The district received a funding decision on its application in the first wave of 2001 funding. Its FCDL was dated July 23, 2001. The FCDL approved all FRNs “as submitted” except the router FRN. The SLD had shifted the service category on this FRN from Internet Access to Internal Connections and, because the district had only a 40% discount rate, the FRN was not funded. On August 15, 2001, the district filed an appeal with the SLD.

Lesson 2: If an applicant believes that the SLD has made a mistake in processing its application – in this case, the inappropriate service category reclassification of the router FRN – the only effective remedy is to file an appeal.

Chapter 3 – Appeal Decision: On November 6, 2002, the SLD issued an Administrator’s Decision on Appeal that approved the district’s appeal in full. Three months later on February 7, 2003, a revised FCDL was sent to the district. The deadline for submitting an invoice on this FRN was extended until July 9, 2003.

Lesson 3: This appeal, which was not particularly complex, nor for a large amount of money, took 14 months to decide. The SLD’s target for deciding appeals is shorter, but the appeal process is never likely to be a speedy one. The three month wait for a formally revised FCDL, which was needed before a BEAR could be filed on the newly approved funding, was relatively prompt in this case. (In other cases, such as those requiring a complete application review, the delay may be substantial.) The invoice deadline extension (to 120 days after the revised FCDL date) was automatic.

Chapter 4 – Form 486 and BEAR: On February 25, 2003, the district filed a Form 486 for the FRN based on the newly revised FCDL. Shortly thereafter, the district filed a BEAR seeking reimbursement for the discounted portion of the router maintenance.

Lesson 4: Since the FRN had initially been denied funding, the FRN was not included on the Form 486 that the district filed back in 2001. To activate funding on the newly approved FRN, a separate Form 486 had to be filed. The Form 486 must be filed within 120 days to the revised FCDL date.

Chapter 5 – “Late” Form 486 Decision: Although the district submitted its Form 486 less than three weeks after receiving the revised FCDL, the SLD sent the district a Form 486 Notification Letter on March 19, 2003, indicating that the Form 486 deadline had been missed and that the Service Start Date for the FRN had been reset to February 25, 2003. On April 4, the SLD advised the district that it would reject the BEAR form. The SLD noted that, while the invoice deadline had been extended, the new service start date was well after the allowable FY 2001 service period. A formal notification that the BEAR was not approved was not issued until June 13, 2003.

Upon investigation, it was found that the SLD had a database problem. The Form 486 deadline for the newly approved FRN was being incorrectly calculated based on the original FCDL issued in 2001, not on the revised FCDL issued in 2003.

Lesson 5: Anyone can make a mistake.

Chapter 6 – Form 486 Appeal: Hoping that the SLD would correct its own problem, the district waited a month. It then filed an appeal contesting the Form 486 service start date change. The SLD rendered an appeal decision on June 30, 2003, again approving the appeal in full and indicating that a revised FCDL would be forthcoming.

Based on an exchange of e-mails with the SLD, it was subsequently determined that a revised FCDL was not needed because the previously revised FCDL was still correct and valid. But what was needed was a revised Form 486 Notification Letter with a corrected Service Start Date.

Lesson 6: Even if the SLD admits a mistake, the applicant’s only recourse is to appeal. Appeals are due within 60 days of the original decision, so all SLD correspondence must be read promptly and thoroughly. In this case, the appeal had to be filed within 60 days of March 19, the date of the incorrect Form 486 Notification Letter. If the problem had not been discovered until the BEAR was formally rejected in June, it would have been too late to try and correct the error.

Chapter 7 – To Be Continued: As of this date, the district has yet to receive a revised Form 486 Notification Letter. Meanwhile, the invoice deadline, which had been extended only through July 9, has expired. Hopefully a revised Form 486 Notification Letter will be issued shortly. Hopefully, the BEAR deadline will be automatically extended without the district having to file an invoice extension request. Hopefully, the BEAR can then be resubmitted and be successfully processed without further complications. And hopefully, the district will actually received reimbursement for this FY 2001 award sometime in early 2004 for the entire amount of – drum roll please – $387.98!

Lesson 7: You have to be a little pigheaded to work so hard for so little money. The good news, however, even if this story is not yet over, is that the SLD’s procedures for appeal, review, and applicant notification can be made to work. All it takes is some perseverance.