Funding Strategy. Revenue generated from the LCLIP program will be spent on streetscape, recreational, and open space investments as described below and detailed in the “specific investments” section. These funds would be split between projects in South Lake Union and Downtown based on the proportion of regional TDR generated in each area. It is estimated that this split will result in about 60% of the funds or $16.5M ($9.4M in 2012 dollars) being allocated to South Lake Union projects and 40% of the funds or $11.0M ($6.3M in 2012 dollars) to Downtown projects. Decisions about which projects to implement and when they will be implemented will be made by the City based on the amount of funding available, project timing, opportunities to leverage outside funds, opportunities to leverage developer improvements, and other factors. In order to streamline this process, the City is proposing to stage the projects such that the first 10 years of revenue would go toward streetscape and transportation projects managed by the Department of Transportation, the second 10 years of revenue would go to park projects managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the last 5 years again would go to streetscape projects managed by the Department of Transportation. A chart summarizing the proposed staging and projects (with priority projects in bold) is shown below: Revenue Years Agency Estimated Total Revenue (2012 Dollars) Proposed Projects by Area South Lake Union Downtown 0-10 years SDOT $2.9M Green Streets (Xxxxxx & 8th) Bike, Pedestrian, and Transit Improvements (Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx) 3rd Avenue Improvements (Capital Projects & Programs) 11-20 years Parks $7.8M Community Center Park Improvements and Acquisitions 21-25 years SDOT $5.0M Transportation Improvements – specific improvements to be determined later In general, the City plans to spend money as it is received; however, opportunities to use bonding to implement projects prior to the receipt of funds will be considered on a project-by-project basis.
Funding Strategy. The distribution of PHEP funds is calculated using a formula established under section 319C-1(h) of the PHS Act, as amended. States and U.S. territories and freely associated states receive the greater of a minimum amount prescribed by the formula or a base amount, as determined by the HHS Secretary, supplemented by a population-based formula, and possible additional funding based on findings about significant unmet needs and high degree of risk. Eligible political subdivisions receive an amount determined by the HHS Secretary and possible additional funding based on findings that the political subdivision has a substantial number of residents, a substantial local infrastructure for responding to public health emergencies, and face a high degree of risk. PHEP cooperative agreement funding is intended primarily to support preparedness activities that help ensure state and local public health departments are prepared to prevent, detect, respond to, mitigate, and recover from a variety of public health threats. PHEP funds may, on a limited, case- by-case basis, be used to support response activities to the extent they are used for their primary purposes: to strengthen public health preparedness and enhance the capabilities of state, local, and tribal governments to respond to public health threats. Some PHEP planning activities may have immediate benefit when conducted or performed simultaneously with an actual public health emergency. It is acceptable to spend PHEP funds on PHEP planning activities that benefit the response effort as long as the activities demonstrably support progress toward achieving CDC's 15 public health preparedness and response capabilities and demonstrate related operational readiness. PHEP recipients must receive approval from CDC to use PHEP funds during response for new activities not previously approved as part of their annual funding applications or subsequent budget change requests. The approval process may include a budget redirection or a change in the scope of activities. Prior approval by the CDC grants management officer (GMO) is required for a change in scope under any award, regardless of whether or not there is an associated budget revision. Any change in scope must also be consistent with the PHEP cooperative agreement's underlying statutory authority, Section 319C-1 of the PHS Act, applicable cost principles, the notice of funding opportunity, and PHEP recipient applications, including the jurisdictional all- hazards p...
Funding Strategy. The project will be funded through discrete funding agreements as follows: o A loan form Homes England – to fund “Infrastructure and Stadium Works” o A sale of Fossetts Phase 1 (the residential land at Fossetts that is subject to the Council AFL at Fossetts) under a forward funding agreement. o A sale of Roots Hall under a forward funding agreement.
Funding Strategy. This NOFO is designed to collect proposals from eligible applicants and designate them as “approved but unfunded” (ABU). The NOFO will only be funded upon occurrence of a particular public health emergency, or one that is projected to impact the U.S., and CDC decides to make awards under this NOFO for that particular emergency. Depending on the nature of the emergency, specific applicants and specific components of their applications will be selected for funding. These funding decisions will take into account various relevant factors such as geographic location of the emergency, expectations of spread (e.g., with infectious disease- related emergencies), applicant’s capabilities, national priorities, impact of the emergency on a jurisdiction, etc. CDC’s ability to understand the impact of the event on the applicant’s jurisdiction will facilitate the development CDC supplemental guidance and funding strategies. This NOFO provides funding for two components: Component A and Component B. Applicants may be selected to receive initial funding for Component A to stand up emergency activities, surge staffing, activate their EOC and/or conduct a needs assessment to determine the resources needed to address the specific public health crisis. Component B will provide for tailored emergency response activities. Components A and B can be issued independently and/or simultaneously based upon the unique needs and nature of the specific emergency. Awards and funding are subject to availability of funds.
Funding Strategy. This NOFO is intended for applicants under section 317(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 247(b)): states, political subdivisions of states, and other public entities. This NOFO is designed to collect proposals from applicants eligible under section 317(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 247(b)). Applications will be subject to an objective merit review and approved applications will be designated as “approved but unfunded” (ABU). The NOFO will only be funded when a public health emergency (PHE) has occurred or is projected to impact the U.S., and CDC decides to make awards under this NOFO for that specific emergency. Depending on the nature of the emergency, specific applicants and specific components of their applications may be selected for funding. These funding decisions will account for various relevant factors such as geographic location of the emergency, expectations of spread (e.g., with infectious disease- related emergencies), applicant’s capabilities, national priorities, impact of the emergency on a jurisdiction, congressional language in the appropriation, etc. CDC’s ability to understand the impact of the event on the approved applicant will facilitate the development CDC supplemental guidance and funding strategies. Since this NOFO is designed to collect applications prior to a PHE, applicants are encouraged to submit work plans and budgets that demonstrate their ability to respond to a PHE. COVID-19 public health response plans, such as plans funded under CDC-RFA-TP18-1802 in 2020, are acceptable for this purpose. If this NOFO is funded for a specific PHE, CDC will develop supplemental guidance that outlines additional work plan and budget requirements tailored to the emergency. This NOFO provides funding for two components: Component A and Component B. Applicants may be selected to receive initial funding for Component A to stand up emergency activities, surge staffing, activate their EOCs, and conduct a needs assessment to determine the resources needed to address the specific public health crisis. Component B will provide for tailored emergency response activities. Components A and B can be issued independently or simultaneously based upon the unique needs and nature of the specific emergency. Depending on the unique needs and nature of the crisis, Components A and B can be issued independently or simultaneously. In addition, if funded independently, either Component A or Component B may include all six domains. Ap...
Funding Strategy. We aim to develop sustainable funding streams to ensure that we have the funding needed to deliver a quality advice service which achieves our statement of purpose, and which meets the priority needs identified in this business plan and the community needs analysis. It will inform our project planning and annual budgeting Recognizing the increased pressure on funding, we will prioritize the services we offer, in order to achieve sustainable funding in order to meet our core objectives. We will engage with both existing and potential funders to: • Understand their funding priorities • Seek to develop funding bids in partnership (both with funders and other agencies) • Develop multi-year funding agreements to facilitate longer term planning. Strategies to retain and renew current funding streams are as follows: - • Deliver services/projects in line with our contracts and SLA’s • Report in quarterly frequency to funders by either meetings and or written reports. • Meetings are both informal and formal with agendas and minutes taken – Funders are advised of our successes, changes and current issues/statistics and contribute to these with suggestions. They area also to contribute to development plans. • Our delivery model is to nurture existing and new partnerships by various ways, visiting other organisations, reciprocal referral systems, joint funding bids and participation in joint strategic boards and consortiums. • Funding is a separate item on the Chief Officers report at all Board meetings – approximately 8 a year. • Research is done on local and national funding streams and analysed to see which ones may be appropriate to our services and our Business and Development Plan. • Applications are submitted when appropriate and cost/benefit analysis is conducted. • We are part of Citizens Advice Essex which is a consortia of Local Citizens Advice offices in Essex and have recently recruited a Business Development Manager to seek County wide funding and submit bids accordingly. This has already produced extra funding from Essex County Council by way of a Warm Homes Energy Contract that will bring in new funding for our organisation. • Our strategy is to keep informed of local needs analysis and align our Business and Development plan with the local Authorities strategic plan. • We aim to nurture current/past/future funder relationships by promoting our services and annual statistics. • We nurture relationships with other organisations to promote our reputation...
Funding Strategy. A long-term Funding Strategy shall be established in order to enable implementation of the Maintenance Plan. The Owner shall submit a Maintenance Plan and Funding Strategy for review and approval by the Heritage Advisory Commission and the Planning and Development Department within 1 year of Council’s approval of this Heritage Revitalization Agreement. Proposed changes to the approved Maintenance Plan and Funding Strategy are subject to review and approval by the Heritage Advisory Commission and the Planning and Development Department.
Funding Strategy. Complete a preliminary assessment of potential funding sources and a strategy for a future HCT investment and associated multimodal projects to help inform Steering Committee and public conversations on HCT alignment choices.
Funding Strategy. CDC will use a funding formula for all three components of the CoAg that is built on years of experience and collaboration with multiple public health partners. CDC distributes TB CoAg funds according to a case-based formula for P&C, HRD, and a workload-based funding formula for the laboratory. Furthermore, performance indicators are included within the P&C formula e.g., Completion of Therapy (COT) and Drug Susceptibility Testing (DST). Thus, the funding formula for P&C is divided into a “needs” component and a “performance” component. This strategy aligns the funding with the changing TB epidemiology in the United States. For guidance on the funding strategy, see p. 39 of this document under the Budget Narrative section. There may be situations when additional funds are required such as unexpected increases in cases, contacts, or persons with LTBI. These represent potential exceptions to the funding formula that could be addressed based on availability of funds to provide the appropriate supplemental award needed to support emergency outbreak responses.
Funding Strategy. Dokken Engineering/LSC will prepare a Funding Strategy for each concept that identifies potential funding sources to advance the concepts to take the alternative from concept through to construction. Dokken Engineering/LSC will prepare an Implementation Strategy for each concept that outlines the future steps needed to take the alternative from concept through to construction. The developed strategy will be presented to DNLTC and the County for comment. Deliverables: Funding Strategy, Implementation Strategy. Dokken Engineering/LSC will prepare and circulate the Elk Valley Cross Road Corridor Plan. Dokken Engineering/LSC will prepare a Preliminary Draft Corridor Plan and circulate to the stakeholder agencies (CSG and SSG) for review and comment. Comments will be address in a response matrix and provided to the reviewers for confirmation of changes made. Dokken Engineering/LSC will prepare a Draft Corridor Plan document that incorporates the review comments from the previous submittal, and circulate the Draft Corridor Plan to the public, Caltrans, County and DNLTC. Task 9.3 Final Corridor Plan Dokken Engineering/LSC will prepare a Final Corridor Plan document that incorporates the review comments from the previous submittal and provide the Final Corridor Plan to the governing boards of the County, DNLTC, and Caltrans. Task 9 Deliverables: Preliminary Draft Corridor plan, response to comments on Preliminary Draft Corridor Plan, Draft Corridor Plan, response to comments on Draft Corridor Plan, Final Corridor Plan.
