Profitability The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the Agreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. Economies of Scale. The Board considered whether there are economies of scale with respect to the management of the Fund and whether the Fund benefits from any economies of scale. The Board noted that the Fund’s investment management fee schedule includes fee breakpoints. The Board concluded that the Fund’s fee schedule represents an appropriate sharing between the Fund and DIMA of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the Fund at current asset levels.
Failure to Maintain Financial Viability The System Agency may terminate the Contract if, in its sole discretion, the System Agency has a good faith belief that Grantee no longer maintains the financial viability required to complete the services and Deliverables, or otherwise fully perform its responsibilities under the Contract.
PRODUCTIVITY The Productivity Scheme which was agreed to is: Contained in Annexure B.
Leverage The Fund has no liability for borrowed money or under any reverse repurchase agreement.
Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.
Staffing Levels To the extent legislative appropriations and PIN authorizations allow, safe staffing levels will be maintained in all institutions where employees have patient, client, inmate or student care responsibilities. In July of each year, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of each agency will, upon request, meet with the Union, to hear the employees’ views regarding staffing levels. In August of each year, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Budget and Management will, upon request, meet with the Union to hear the employees’ views regarding the Governor’s budget request.
Performance Rating Describes the Educator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings: Exemplary: the Educator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district-wide. Proficient: the Educator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.
Metrics The DISTRICT and PARTNER will partake in monthly coordination meetings at mutually agreed upon times and dates to discuss the progress of the program Scope of Work. DISTRICT and PARTNER will also mutually establish criteria and process for ongoing program assessment/evaluation such as, but not limited to the DISTRICT’s assessment metrics and other state metrics [(Measures of Academic Progress – English, SBAC – 11th grade, Redesignation Rates, mutually developed rubric score/s, student attendance, and Social Emotional Learning (SEL) data)]. The DISTRICT and PARTNER will also engage in annual review of program content to ensure standards alignment that comply with DISTRICT approved coursework. The PARTNER will provide their impact data based upon these metrics.
Staff-to-Youth Ratio Requirement For all group activities the AGENCY shall abide by the staff-to-youth ratio range that is between the ratio established by its written policy and procedures and the ratio stated in Section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes. If the staff-to-youth ratio does not meet the minimum standard of care as stated in Section 402.305 (4), Florida Statutes, the AGENCY shall increase staff- to-youth ratios to meet these minimum standards. Section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes, states the minimum staff-to-youth ratio for on-site group activities for children five (5) years of age or older there must be one (1) childcare personnel staff to every twenty-five (25) children; for field trips and other off-site activities, Chapter 65C-22.001, Florida Administrative Code, requires one (1) extra adult, in addition to the on-site requirement. This standard shall be required for all programming paid for with funds under this Contract. The AGENCY will ensure that the staffing pattern is adequate and is adjusted to meet programmatic needs. The AGENCY shall adjust its staffing ratio to meet any ratio update required by Florida Statutes that occurs during the Contract year.
Mileage Measurement Where required, the mileage measurement for LIS rate elements is determined in the same manner as the mileage measurement for V&H methodology as outlined in NECA Tariff No. 4.
