Cost Benefit Analysis. Section 18-2113 of the Act, further requires the Authority conduct a cost benefit analysis of the plan amendment in the event that Tax Increment Financing will be used. This analysis must address specific statutory issues.
Cost Benefit Analysis. This Plan when presented for recommendation and approval shall be accompanied by a cost benefit analysis. Such analysis is as follows:
a. Tax shifts resulting from the approval of the use of funds pursuant to section 18-2147: This project will create minimal retail jobs. This is not likely to result in new City residents and therefore, will not increase student load for the school system.
b. Public infrastructure and public service needs: No additional unplanned infrastructure or public services are anticipated. Sales tax generated by the construction and operation of the facility will more than reimburse the City for any unforeseen expenses over time.
c. Impacts on employers and employees within the project area: None exist. Therefore no impact is expected.
d. Impacts on employers and employees in the city, but not in the project area: The construction of the facility will result in a slight increase in temporary employment.
e. Other impacts: No significant negative additional impacts are anticipated.
1. Principal amount An amount calculated to be amortized by incremental tax revenues from and after January 1, 2016 for a period of 15 years.
Cost Benefit Analysis. Section 552a(u)(4) of the Privacy Act provides that a cost-benefit analysis must be completed prior to the approval of this Agreement. In addition to the computer matching program subject to this Agreement, CMS has computer matching agreements with other federal agencies and Administering Entities under which CMS receives data matches through the Hub from multiple source agencies, and CMS and Administering Entities access data matches for the purpose of making Eligibility Determinations related to enrollment in a Qualified Health Plan or Insurance Affordability Program. CMS has conducted one cost-benefit analysis covering these computer matching agreements. This cost-benefit analysis is attached as Attachment A.
Cost Benefit Analysis. (a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms, section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to ‘‘consider the costs and possessions, or the applicant is otherwise able to benefits’’ of its action. Section 15(a) demonstrate that it has adopted appropriate procedures for producing its books and records in the United States expeditiously upon request, and the applicant can and does represent that it will comply with such procedures.’’ Staff Letter 87–10, [1987–1990 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 23,999 (Dec. 9, 1987). (Emphasis in original.) 16 47 FR 18618–18621 (April 30, 1982). 17 Pub. L. 104–13 (May 13, 1995). further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: Protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. The Commission published an analysis of costs and benefits when it proposed the rule amendments that have now been adopted.18 It did not receive any public comments pertaining to the analysis. Definitions, Foreign futures, Foreign options, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Registration requirements. ■ In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, sections 2(a)(1), 4(b), 4c and 8 thereof, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6(b), 6c and 12a, and pursuant to the authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552b, the Commission hereby amends Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Cost Benefit Analysis. (a) of the CEA 37 requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing a rulemaking under the CEA. By its terms, section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the rule outweigh its costs; rather, it requires that the Commission ‘‘consider’’ the costs and benefits of its actions.
Cost Benefit Analysis. We will perform a cost analysis of procurement options for material and labor of construction and maintenance. Recommended partnership and ownership models will be included in this analysis. Finally, we will provide an analysis and guidance on recommended Broadband deployment options available to the county. We will also prepare a county resource plan for implementation and operation phases.
Cost Benefit Analysis. A. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost Benefit Analysis. The cost benefit analysis (Attachment 2) conducted for the PARIS matching programs (consisting of this matching program using DoD data, a related matching program using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data, and the interstate data matching program) demonstrates that the matching programs are likely to be cost effective and provides additional qualitative benefits supporting Data Integrity Board approval. See analysis for details.2
Cost Benefit Analysis. The cost benefit analysis (Attachment 2) conducted for the PARIS matching programs (including this matching program using DoD data, and a related matching program using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data) demonstrates their likelihood to be cost effective. In addition to certain qualitative benefits, the analysis reflects total federal and state agency costs of approximately $3,944,915.72 per year, and total state benefits savings of approximately $221,427,015.00 per year.1 1 The estimated state benefits of this matching program are based on a 2007 cost-benefit analysis undertaken by HHS/ACF to assess the potential impact of PARIS on state programs system-wide. Although a similar systemic study has not been conducted in recent years, ACF estimates the current benefits of PARIS are at least as large as the 2007 estimate. In the 2007 analysis there were 40 states participating in PARIS and today all 50 States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico participate in PARIS.
Cost Benefit Analysis. As part of the cost/benefit analysis, LMITCO will request that DOE-Idaho seek from the Department of labor a wage and benefit determination pursuant to the Service Contract Act (SCA) in accordance with the Department of Labor’s normal policies, for positions scheduled to be privatized which are represented by OCAW. LMITCO’s Business Management Branch will present and explain to up to three LMITCO representatives and to two local OCAW representatives and the OCAW International official a cost/benefit analysis of each function considered for privatization which has bargaining unit members represented by OCAW and highlight any variance from the basic cost model. OCAW may appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days any variance from the basic cost/benefit analysis model to DOE-ID and then DOE-HQ for a final decision provided such appeal to DOE-HQ is submitted in writing to DOE-HQ within 10 calendar days of receipt of the decision from DOE-ID. As an alternative, OCAW may choose to arbitrate any variance through the expedited arbitration procedure. Cost benefit analysis data will only be disclosed to union officials and representatives who have a need to know such data in the exercise of their Union responsibilities and who have signed the attached non-disclosure agreement provided by LMITCO. Open discussions will be held with OCAW officials regarding the analysis and any response by such officials will be fully considered. OCAW officials may request, and LMITCO will not decline to provide, relevant information such as the documentation supporting the cost/benefit analysis. Discussions between LMITCO and OCAW officials will occur as needed, during the thirty (30) calendar-day period triggered by LMITCO’S Business Management Branch’s presentation to OCAW and LMITCO representatives of the cost/benefit analysis. OCAW officials may present to LMITCO any alternative, including a proposed method to determine the numbers of employees necessary for the effective performance of any privatized work for consideration during this thirty (30) calendar-day period.
