MEMBER CATEGORIES Sample Clauses
MEMBER CATEGORIES. 1.1 For the purpose of determining joining fees, the Member shall be classified, at the sole discretion of the Supplier, into one of the following categories:
(a) Municipalities, which are defined as cities, towns, new towns, villages, summer villages, counties, municipal districts and improvement districts with joining fees determined by the Supplier from time to time having regard to population, subject to minimum and maximum amounts;
(b) Utilities, which are defined as water supply and distribution systems, gas distribution systems, electrical distribution systems, telephone systems and cable television systems with joining fees determined by the number of customers, subject to minimum and maximum amounts.
(c) Pipelines, which are defined as oil and gas explorers, developers, producers, processors, refiners, pipeline transmission companies, product transporting companies, pipeline operators, irrigation districts, trunk sewer systems and trunk water main systems with joining fees determined by the length of buried pipe, subject to minimum and maximum amounts.
(d) Plants, which are defined as gas processing plants and compressor stations with joining fees set at a flat rate.
(e) First Nations, which are lands or portions of lands as described by the First Nation applicant.
(f) Others, which may be defined from time to time by and at the discretion of the Supplier.
MEMBER CATEGORIES. Affiliate is required to offer the following categories of membership in Affiliate:
MEMBER CATEGORIES. Local Affiliate is required to offer the following categories of membership in Local Affiliate.
MEMBER CATEGORIES. The last bylaw principle that was presented at the workshops was the member categories. Members were advised that the PITF recommendation was to maintain existing member categories as well as ensuring jurisdiction for member categories are maintained discretely between RPFs and RPFTs. This recommendation was uniformly rejected by members at all workshop locations. Members felt that this recommendation perpetuated separation and distance between professionals instead of bring them together as this initiative is intended to do. Members believed that instead of retaining old titles and categories the amalgamation strategy should consider different competency models, categories and titles.