Specific Recommendations for Existing Parks Sample Clauses

Specific Recommendations for Existing Parks. Recommendations for improvements of all existing parks, trails, and facilities will be prepared. Recommendations for value engineering and reduction of maintenance costs will be prepared. Elements will include but not be limited to: • Parking • Hardscape and paving • Restrooms • Sports facilities • Planting • Irrigation • Drainage • Lighting condition and lighting levels • Playgrounds • Site furnishings
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Specific Recommendations for Existing Parks

  • Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.

  • Audit of Existing Content and Functionality By May 1, 2017, the District will propose for OCR’s review and approval the identity and bona fides of an Auditor (corporation or individual) to audit all content and functionality on its website, including, but not limited to, the home page, all subordinate pages, and intranet pages and sites, to identify any online content or functionality that is inaccessible to persons with disabilities, including online content and functionality developed by, maintained by, or offered through a third party vendor or an open source. The Auditor will have sufficient knowledge and experience in website accessibility for people with disabilities to carry out all related tasks, including developing a Proposed Corrective Action Plan. The Audit will use the Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility set out above, unless the District receives prior permission from OCR to use a different standard as a benchmark. During the Audit, the District will also seek input from members of the public with disabilities, including parents, students, employees, and others associated with the District, and other persons knowledgeable about website accessibility, regarding the accessibility of its online content and functionality.

  • Requirements for E- Bidders 3.1. For Individual/ Joint E-Bidders, the following documents shall be uploaded during online registration;

  • Credit for Experience A. Newly employed teachers will receive the equivalent year's credit for each year of experience. The experience granted will be equal to the FTE experience for each year worked. This credit will be granted if, in the judgment of the Superintendent, the teaching experience has been appropriate to the position which has been offered. For example, teaching experience at the secondary level may not be appropriate if the applicant is being considered for an elementary position. Placement on the salary schedule beginning with the 2017-18 contract year will be accomplished in the following manner:

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • Request for Extension Upon request, the Department may extend the time allowed for both a response to the Letter of Concern and a Corrective Action Plan depending upon the nature of the deficiency. The Provider shall request an extension of time in writing from the Department’s designated representative. The written request shall contain a justification and proposed extension period.

  • Academic Policies and Student Support Services X. Xxxx College courses offered as dual credit, regardless of where they are taught, follow the same syllabus, course outline, textbook, grading method, and other academic policies and procedures as the courses outlined in the Hill College policy manual, catalog, and student handbook. [TAC 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter D, 4.85(g)(1)]

  • Visitors to and Conduct on School Property Petitions or written correspondence to the Board shall be presented to the Board in the next regular Board packet. LEGAL REF.: 5 ILCS 120/2.06, Open Meetings Act. 105 ILCS 5/10-6 and 5/10-16. CROSS REF.: 2:220 (School Board Meeting Procedure), 8:10 (Connection with the Community), 8:30 (Visitors to and Conduct on School Property) Adopted: September 5, 2019 Meridian CUSD 223 2:240 Board Policy Development The School Board governs using written policies. Written policies ensure legal compliance, establish Board processes, articulate District ends, delegate authority, and define operating limits. Board policies also provide the basis for monitoring progress toward District ends. Policy Development Anyone may propose new policies, changes to existing policies, or elimination of existing policies. Staff suggestions should be processed through the Superintendent. Suggestions from all others should be made to the Board President or the Superintendent. A Board Policy Committee will consider all policy suggestions, and provide information and recommendations to the Board. The Superintendent is responsible for: (1) providing relevant policy information and data to the Board,

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.