We use cookies on our site to analyze traffic, enhance your experience, and provide you with tailored content.

For more information visit our privacy policy.

Evaluation of Alternatives Sample Clauses

Evaluation of Alternatives. Provide a summary of principal findings and conclusions from the evaluation of alternatives, based on specific cost and non-cost criteria.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (11)
Evaluation of Alternatives. The Consultant will evaluate the study area transportation system to determine the level of transportation benefit realized from each alternative. Cost-effectiveness of each alternative will be determined based upon FTA guidelines.
Sample 1Sample 2
Evaluation of Alternatives. CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the “No Project” alternative. This Addendum relies on the FEIS/EIR for the evaluation of alternatives. The FEIS/EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. The City of Tustin is implementing Alternative 1 of the FEIS/EIR, and there is no information indicating that the City should implement a different Alternative or that a different Alternative is feasible. Consistent with Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines that identifies which environmental evaluation is required for projects that are consistent with a community plan or zoning, there is no need to address new alternatives in this Addendum. Additionally, there are no circumstances cited in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require preparation of a subsequent EIR relative to alternatives.
Sample 1
Evaluation of Alternatives. The Board of Directors has evaluated a number of alternatives to the Transaction in order to assess the possibility to decrease financial indebtedness and provide sufficient financial headroom going forward. Such evaluation has included i.e. a potential rights issue and/or divestment of certain other assets. On 16 February 2024, the Board of Directors received a non-binding indication of interest from Xxx Xxxxxxxx, including key terms for a potential transaction. Xxx Xxxxxxxx has not been involved in the Board of Director’s assessment and evaluations of the Transaction, or other potential transactions since 16 February 2024. The Independent Bid Committee of the Board of Directors of Thunderful Group has appointed BDO Deal Advisory as an independent valuation expert to evaluate the fairness from a financial point of view for the shareholders of Thunderful Group regarding the Transaction. According to the valuation assessment, BDO Deal Advisory has concluded that the Transaction is fair from a financial point of view for the shareholders of the Company. Additionally, BDO Deal Advisory has concluded that following the Transaction, New Thunderful will be sufficiently capitalised to cover the liquidity needs in the short to mid-term based on the forecasts provided by Thunderful Group. Given the difficult financial situation, assessment of available alternatives, and considering the fairness opinion and the material available to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors assesses that the Transaction constitutes the most attractive alternative for Thunderful Group and its shareholders. Therefore, the Board of Directors (excluding Xxx Xxxxxxxx due to conflict of interest) has resolved to propose that the shareholders of Thunderful Group vote in favour of the Transaction. Following the completion of the Transaction, as well as the divestment of Nordic Games Supply previously announced on 26 April 2024, Thunderful Group will become a pure-play games company. New Thunderful will continue to focus on games development and publishing of games. The operations will be centred around the three business segments Publishing, Game development and Co-Development & Partner services, providing a diverse set of revenue streams with different characteristics and risk profiles. Publishing comprises publishing of internal and externally developed games and back catalogue revenues. New titles have a more volatile revenue profile while the back catalogue contributes with revenue...
Sample 1
Evaluation of Alternatives. Alternatives identified in Task 6.1 will undergo evaluation against a range of criteria that include:
Sample 1
Evaluation of Alternatives. The study will evaluate two (2) alternatives for the removal of existing arch culverts and creation of a new greenway corridor and public space that will integrate with future redevelopment of the mall site in accordance with the City’s recently adopted comprehensive plan and future land use designations. The Consultant team will conceptualize two alternatives that can be generally characterized as: I. Open channel with no water features II. Open channel with water features Both alternatives will be evaluated in light of the criteria listed under Tasks 4.1 through 4.8 as described below.
Sample 1
Evaluation of Alternatives. The No-Project Alternative (fully discussed at pages 5-4 through 5-5 of the Draft EIR) would result in the Project not being constructed. The No Project Alternative would involve maintaining the existing seawater system as a source of seawater for research and conducting emergency shoreline protection activities, such as sand bagging, on a seasonal and as-needed basis. Any structural damage or functional failures of the existing seawater system would be repaired on a case-by-case basis. No upgrades in the system reliability or shoreline protection methods would be implemented. The No Project Alternative would result in significant erosion impacts to, and possible destruction of, the Lagoon Barrier and seawater system improvements due to continued storm damage associated with a retreating coastal environment. Project impacts to land use, terrestrial biology, marine biology, visual quality, and noise would be avoided by not constructing the proposed project. Potential breach of the Lagoon Barrier would adversely impact species that are currently dependent on the open water habitat of the lagoon. Potential impacts on visual character CALENDAR PAGUS 116.2 ICTHE PAGE 002761 would be expected if the Campus Lagoon water drains and eliminates the highly scenic water feature. Although many of the significant project impacts would be reduced or eliminated, the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the basic project objectives and could jeopardize valuable research projects should the seawater system fail. For these reasons, the No Project Alternative is infeasible. Under the No Shoreline Protection Alternative (fully discussed at pages 5-5 through 5-12 of the Draft EIR) the Seawater System Renewal Project would be constructed; however, the rock revetment would not be installed. The No Shoreline Protection Alternative would temporarily increase the reliability of the seawater system on campus by constructing new and upgraded facilities. However, without shoreline protection incorporated into the project design, the Lagoon Barrier would not be stabilized and all seaward improvements would eventually be exposed to erosion caused by wave action and storm surges. Damage to the beach pumphouse, wet well and underground utilities could jeopardize the seawater system and research projects that depend on fresh seawater. In the event of system failure caused by erosion damage, none of the marine research and instruction involving seawater could be accomplished. Access t...
Sample 1

Related to Evaluation of Alternatives

  • Evaluation of Students Acknowledging the District’s adopted grading system, the teacher shall maintain the right and responsibility to determine grades and other evaluation of a student. No grade or evaluation shall be changed except by the teacher with the approval of the building administrator.

  • Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives (i) For each Single Family Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Assuming Institution shall undertake reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts, in accordance with any of the following programs selected by Assuming Institution in its sole discretion, Exhibit 5 (FDIC Mortgage Loan Modification Program), the United States Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program Guidelines or any other modification program approved by the United States Treasury Department, the Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any other governmental agency (it being understood that the Assuming Institution can select different programs for the various Single Family Shared-Loss Loans) (such program chosen, the “Modification Guidelines”). After selecting the applicable Modification Guideline for each such Single Family Shared-Loss Loan, the Assuming Institution shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring under the applicable Modification Guideline chosen, and short-sale (if short-sale is a viable option) alternatives and shall select the alternative the Assuming Institution believes, based on its estimated calculations, will result in the least Loss. If unemployment or underemployment is the primary cause for default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Assuming Institution may consider the borrower for a temporary forbearance plan which reduces the loan payment to an affordable level for at least six (6) months. (ii) Losses on Home Equity Loans shall be shared under the charge-off policies of the Assuming Institution’s Examination Criteria as if they were Single Family Shared-Loss Loans. (iii) Losses on Investor-Owned Residential Loans shall be treated as Restructured Loans, and with the consent of the Receiver can be restructured under terms separate from the Exhibit 5 standards. Please refer to Exhibits 2(a)(1)-(2) for guidance in Calculation of Loss for Restructured Loans. Losses on Investor-Owned Residential Loans will be treated as if they were Single Family Shared-Loss Loans. (iv) The Assuming Institution shall retain its loss calculations for the Shared Loss Loans and such calculations shall be provided to the Receiver upon request. For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, (x) the Assuming Institution is not required to modify or restructure any Shared-Loss Loan on more than one occasion and (y) the Assuming Institution is not required to consider any alternatives with respect to any Shared-Loss Loan in the process of foreclosure as of the Bank Closing if the Assuming Institution can document that a loan modification is not cost effective and shall be entitled to continue such foreclosure measures and recover the Foreclosure Loss as provided herein, and (z) the Assuming Institution shall have a transition period of up to 90 days after Bank Closing to implement the Modification Guidelines, during which time, the Assuming Institution may submit claims under such guidelines as may be in place at the Failed Bank.

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans. B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below. C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows: i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus. ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals. D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.

  • Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement which conform with and provide specificity to the statutory obligations established by Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111 and § 3319.112.

  • Coordination of Services Consultant agrees to work closely with City staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City’s staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.

  • Independent Evaluation Buyer is an experienced and knowledgeable investor in the oil and gas business. Buyer has been advised by and has relied solely on its own expertise and legal, tax, title, reservoir engineering, environmental and other professional counsel concerning this transaction, the Properties, the value thereof and title thereto.

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

Most Referenced Clauses

Most Referenced Definitions