Implementation Review Sample Clauses

Implementation Review. The School Board, the County and the City shall conduct workshops, at least annually, to discuss the implementation of this Agreement. The implementation review workshops shall be open to the public and provide for public comment on the implementation of this Agreement. The implementation review workshops may be either separate workshops conducted by the separate parties to this Agreement, or joint workshops providing for the participation of more than one party to this Agreement. In any event, each of the parties to this Agreement shall be required to participate in at least one implementation review workshop annually. The SWG shall prepare the agendas for the implementation review workshops, which shall include a report on the activities involved in the implementation of the Agreement since the execution of this Agreement, or since the last implementation review workshop, whichever is applicable.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Implementation Review. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, the Parties will conduct a review of the implementation of the agreements comprising the Expanded Settlement Package for the purpose of identifying any matters which remain to be completed for the relevant period and use reasonable endeavours to complete the outstanding items set out in the Implementation Plan.
Implementation Review. The EMSU staff will conduct a review of the Company’s progress regarding the implementation of the two recommendations made in this report. Staff Participant Affidavits Xxxxx X. Xxxxx – Water & Sewer Department Xxxxxx X. XxXxxxxx-Auditing Department
Implementation Review. The EMSU staff will conduct a review of the Com pany’s progress regarding the implementation of the two recommendations made in this report. Agreement Attachment H Water & Sewer Unit Memorandum
Implementation Review. The EMSU staff will conduct a review of the Company’s progress regarding the implementation of the recommendation made in this report. Agreement Attachment J Summary of Case Events Raytown Water Compamy Case #WR-2012-0405 Summary of Case Events Date Filed June 4, 2012 Day 150 November 1, 2012 Extension? No If yes, why? N/A Amount Requested $426,951 Amount Agreed Upon $390,268 Item(s)/Dollar(s) Driving Rate Increase Increase in cost of water purchased from the City of Kansas City Number of Customers 6,508 Return on Equity 8.25% Assessments Current Yes Annual Reports Filed Yes Statement of Revenue Filed Yes Other Open Cases before Commission None Status with Secretary of State Current DNR Violations None Significant Service/Quality Issues None Staff Participant Affidavits Xxxxx X. Xxxxx – Water & Sewer Department Xxxxx Xxxxxxx – Water & Sewer Department Xxxx Xxxxxxxx-Auditing Department
Implementation Review. The CMAU staff will conduct a review of the Company’s progress regarding the implementation of the one recommendation made in this report. Disposition Agreement Attachment D Water and Sewer Department Report Background‌ REPORT OF WATER AND SEWER UNIT FIELD OPERATIONS AND TARIFF REVIEW Raccoon Creek Utility Operating Company, Inc. Case No. SR-2016-0202 Xxx Xxxxxx / Xxxxx Xxxxxx / Xxxx Xxxxxxx Raccoon Creek Utility Operating Company, Inc. (Company) received its certificate of convenience and necessity from the Missouri Public Service Commission (Commission) November 24, 2014 in case number SM-2015-0014. This Company was formed by purchasing Village Water and Sewer Company, Inc. (near Xxxxxxxx Air Force Base in Knob Noster in Xxxxxxx County); W.P.C. Sewer Company; and West 16th Street Sewer Company, Inc. (in Sedalia in Xxxxxx County). These three systems collectively provide service to approximately 500 sewer customers. The Commission’s Water and Sewer Staff (Staff) performed an inspection on the sewer systems. Staff’s findings and recommendations for the Company are listed below.

Related to Implementation Review

  • Project Implementation Manual The Recipient, through the PCU, shall: (i) take all action required to carry out Parts 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2, 3.1(b), 3.2, 3.3 and 4 (ii) of the Project in accordance with the provisions and requirements set forth or referred to in the Project Implementation Manual; (ii) submit recommendations to the Association for its consideration for changes and updates of the Project Implementation Manual as they may become necessary or advisable during Project implementation in order to achieve the objective of Parts 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2, 3.1(b), 3.2, 3.3 and 4(ii) of the Project; and (iii) not assign, amend, abrogate or waive the Project Implementation Manual or any of its provisions without the Association’s prior agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any of the provisions of the Project Implementation Manual is inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and govern.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Implementation Report Within 150 days after the Effective Date, each Provider shall submit a written report to OIG summarizing the status of its implementation of the requirements of this CIA (Implementation Report). The Implementation Report shall, at a minimum, include:

  • Systems Review The Construction Administrator will conduct reviews of proposed roof, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, conveyance, sprinkler, telecommunications, and life safety systems, and will consider initial cost, availability, impact on the overall program, comfort and convenience, long-term maintenance and operating costs, and impacts on schedule.

  • Project Implementation 2. The Borrower shall:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!