Standards for Review. In exercising any authority created by this Restriction to inspect the Building; to review any construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance; or to review casualty damage or to reconstruct or approve reconstruction of the Building following casualty damage, the Commission shall apply the Secretary's Standards.
Standards for Review. Before submitting a proposal to the Legislature for approval the department must find that the proposal meets the following standards.
Standards for Review. The reimbursement review process includes an initial review for completeness, determination of eligibility and data entry of the cash request for tracking/monitoring. This review is conducted by the Grants Specialist and focuses on accuracy of requests, prior approval of costs in the budget and ensuring complete documentation accompanies the request. Cash requests that are properly executed by the subrecipient will be processed in 10 business days or less. If a request is not complete (including but not limited to the following items: lack of proper documentation, costs not included on the approved budget, no prior EHP approval, etc.) the request will be rejected to the subrecipient fiscal agent for revision. Subrecipients are encouraged to utilize their Grants Specialist for technical assistance in filling out the cash request and compiling documentation to support the cash request prior to submission in an attempt to expedite the approval process.
Standards for Review. In exercising the authority granted to Grantee by this Deed and Agreement to inspect the Premises, the Improvements or the Facades, to review and approve any construction, alteration, repair or maintenance, or to review casualty damage and to reconstruct or approve reconstruction of the Improvements or Facades following casualty damage, Grantee shall apply the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings published and issued by the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the “Secretary”), as the same may be amended from time to time (the “Standards”) and State or local standards considered appropriate by Grantee for review of work affecting historically or architecturally significant structures or for construction of new structures within historically, architecturally or culturally significant districts. Grantor agrees to abide by the Standards in performing all restoration, rehabilitation, repair and maintenance work on the Improvements. In the event the Standards are abandoned or materially altered or otherwise become, in the sole judgment of Grantee, inappropriate for the purposes set forth above, Grantee may apply reasonable alternative standards and notify Grantor of the substituted standards.
Standards for Review. The reimbursement review process includes an initial review for completeness, determination of eligibility and data entry of the cash request for tracking/monitoring. This review is conducted by the Preparedness Grants Program Specialist and focuses on accuracy of requests, prior approval of costs in the budget and ensuring complete documentation accompanies the request. Cash requests that are properly executed by the sub-grantee will be processed within 10 business days or less. If a request is not complete, this includes but is not limited to the following items: lack of proper documentation, costs not included on the approved budget, no prior EHP approval, etc. the request will be rejected to the sub-grantee for revision. Sub-grantees are encouraged to utilize their Program Specialist for technical assistance in filling out the cash request and compiling documentation to support the cash request prior to submission in an attempt to expedite the approval process. Payment Upon approval by the Preparedness Grants Branch, the sub-grantees’ funds will be requested for payment from Ohio EMA’s fiscal unit. The payment process entails requesting money from the federal entity, receiving funds at the state level, vouchering the funds and the dispatching of an EFT to the sub-grantee. While this process relies heavily on external stakeholders, Ohio EMA will work to ensure the quickest processing of sub-grantee payments.
Standards for Review. In exercising any authority created by the Stewardship Agreement to review any construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance, or to review casualty damage or to reconstruct or approve reconstruction of the Building following casualty damage, LCHIP shall apply the Secretary's Standards.
Standards for Review. The reimbursement review process includes an initial review for completeness, determination of eligibility and data entry of the cash request for tracking/monitoring. This review is conducted by the Grants Specialist and the Grants Program Administrator and focuses on accuracy of requests, prior approval of costs in the budget and ensuring complete documentation accompanies the request. If a request is not complete, this includes but is not limited to the following items: lack of proper documentation, costs not included on the approved budget, no prior EHP approval, etc. the request will be rejected to the sub-grantee for revision. Sub-grantees are encouraged to utilize their Grants Specialist for technical assistance in filling out the cash request and compiling documentation to support the cash request prior to submission in an attempt to expedite the approval process.
Standards for Review. Whenever in these Covenants Developer or the Association has the right to approve, consent to, or require any action be taken pursuant to the terms hereof, such approval, consent or required action shall, except as otherwise specifically provided herein to the contrary, be given or withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of Developer, the ARC, or the Association as the case may be.
Standards for Review. The Town shall apply the Secretary's Standards and the HDC Guidelines whenever exercising any authority, right or privilege created by this Restriction. If the Secretary’s Standards or the HDC Guidelines are revoked, then the most recent version of the Secretary’s Standards or the HDC Guidelines, as the case may be, shall apply to this Restriction as if such version had not been revoked unless the revoked HDC Guidelines or Secretary’s Standards are replaced by successor guidelines or standards, in which event such successor guidelines or standards shall apply.
Standards for Review. Before submitting a proposal to the Legislature for approval the department must find that the proposal meets the following standards.
A. The purpose of and need for the transportation facility must be consistent with the long-term planning of the department. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
B. The private entity must have the financial, technical and operational capacity to discharge the responsibilities set forth in the proposal cost-effectively and responsibly as determined by the department. This capacity must include, but is not limited to, meeting department prequalification standards for professional engineering services and general contracting. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
C. The proposed transportation facility must be owned, controlled, operated and maintained in a manner satisfactory to the department. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
D. The proposal must be cost-effective in the long term. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
E. The proposal must limit the use of state capital funding to less than 50% of the initial capital cost of the transportation facility and to the extent practicable minimize the use of transportation funding sources such as the Highway Fund, general obligation bonds supported by the Highway Fund, the TransCap Trust Fund under Title 30‑A, section 6006‑G and program funding provided by the Federal Highway Administration. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
F. If the proposed transportation facility is to be supported by tolls or other user fees, the private entity must provide a traffic and revenue study prepared by an expert acceptable to the department and national bond rating agencies. The private entity must also provide a finance plan consistent with the traffic and revenue study that identifies the proposal costs, revenues by source, financing, major assumptions, internal rate of return on private investments and whether any government funds are assumed to deliver a cost-feasible project and that provides a total cash flow analysis beginning with implementation of the project and extending for the term of the agreement. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
G. The proposal must demonstrate safeguards adequate to ensure that no significant additional costs or service disruptions would be borne by the traveling public and residents of the State if the private entity defaults or cancels the agreement. [PL 2009, c. 648, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
H. The proposal must include a provision that any contractor performing con...
