Findings and Recommendations. 10 The findings and recommendations of the Review Panel shall be dealt with as follows:
Findings and Recommendations. The Hearing Officer within ten (10) City business days after the conclusion of the hearing shall submit his findings and recommendations to the City Manager. The recommendations of the Hearing Officer are advisory only and may be accepted, rejected or modified by the City Manager.
Findings and Recommendations. The Hearing Officer shall, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing, certify his/her findings and decisions in writing to the City Council and to the appellant. The City Council shall review the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Officer and may then affirm, revoke or modify the action taken as, on its judgment, seems warranted, and the action taken shall be final. The Hearing Officer may submit a minority or supplemental finding and recommendation. In the case of suspension, discharge or demotion, the appointing power shall reinstate an employee to the employee’s former status if the City Council determines that the action was for discriminatory reasons.
Findings and Recommendations. 11.15 The PIRC’s reports may contain Findings and Recommendations.
Findings and Recommendations. Preliminary findings were drafted by the Demand Management Work Group and Water Forum.
Findings and Recommendations. Based on the results of the laboratory analyses, asbestos was confirmed in the following materials: Ceiling texture/drywall/joint compound (2 types) Wall texture/drywall/joint compound (2 types) Resilient sheet flooring Exterior door caulk Exterior window caulk The identified asbestos containing materials were assessed to be nonfriable and in good condition on the day of the survey. The identified asbestos containing materials must be abated prior to demolition activities if those activities will potentially disturb the identified asbestos containing materials. The asbestos abatement must be performed by a State of Texas licensed asbestos contractor in accordance with a project design prepared by a State of Texas licensed asbestos consultant. In addition, third party air monitoring must be performed during the abatement. It is important to note TAHPR and NESHAP require that written notification be submitted before beginning renovation projects which include the disturbance of any ACM in a building or facility, or before the demolition of a building or facility, even when no asbestos is present. This written notification must be provided to the TDSHS at least 10 working days prior to the commencement of asbestos abatement or demolition activities. These activities must be performed in accordance with the current TDSHS, EPA, and OSHA guidelines. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 Asbestos Survey West Residential Structure ■ 000 Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx ■ Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx January 11, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. 95167710
Findings and Recommendations. The findings and recommendations related to Renewable Energy Industry water-use efficiency, alternative supplies for cooling water, use of conserved water and related policies were presented to the Demand Work Group and Water Forum to inform their discussions. In December 2010 and January 2011, the Demand Work Group reviewed and discussed the draft findings and recommendations, prior studies and technical information, state requirements for cooling water for energy facilities, and a range of management strategies. Meetings were also held by the energy stakeholder interest group to discuss the states Renewable Energy Action Team recommended best management practices for desert environments (REAT, 2011), prior studies, and the draft findings and recommendations. Based on the work group and energy stakeholder interest group input, revised draft findings and recommendations were then presented to the Water Forum in February 2011. Changes were made and the re-drafted findings and recommendations were further discussed by the Water Forum in March 2011 and the energy stakeholder interest group meeting in April 2011. Final draft findings and recommendations were reviewed and adopted by the Water Forum in June 2011.
Findings and Recommendations. The State followed the requirements of the project extension agreement when claiming Federal Ambulatory and Supplemental funds and adequately supported the costs claimed for outpatient clinic services under both components. We noted, however, that the County could not identify approximately $549.8 million (approximately $285.2 million Federal share) in claimed Supplemental expenditures with specific costs incurred.3 The project extension agreement did not require that claimed Supplemental expenditures be based on costs incurred by the County or State for specific services, supplies, or equipment. According to the project extension proposal, the purpose of Supplemental funding was to offset any DSH payments lost as a result of reduced inpatient hospital utilization under the waiver. The project extension agreement allowed the State to claim as Supplemental expenditures amounts that the State disbursed to the County if the County (1) provided the non-Federal share of the disbursements and (2) certified annually to providing at least 450,000 outpatient clinic visits to indigent and Medicaid patients. An agreement for a federally funded project should contain an accountability requirement to ensure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the purposes of the project. Without such a 3State expenditures of approximately $348.9 million (approximately $179.1 million Federal share) for State FYs 2001 and 2002 are final. At the completion of our fieldwork, State expenditures of approximately $200.9 million (approximately $106.1 million Federal share) for State FYs 2003 and 2004 were subject to change up to the 2-year claiming limitation specified in the project extension agreement. requirement, there was no assurance that the County used the approximately $549.8 million in Supplemental funding for the purposes intended by the project extension agreement. Documentation provided by County officials indicated that Supplemental disbursements had contributed to a reserve fund of approximately $306.4 million accumulated by the County Department of Health Services.
Findings and Recommendations. We determined that ORA was accomplishing or making adequate progress in fulfilling the objectives of the grant. However, our audit revealed internal control weaknesses as well as accounting and reporting deficiencies. Specifically, we found insufficient documentation to support grant payroll activity and identified that two required progress reports were filed late. The grantee also pro-rated the amounts budgeted for several cost categories and reported the pro-rated amounts as actual expenditures in its reimbursement requests and financial status reports. As a result, we questioned $138,310 in unsupported expenditures. We performed audit work at the ORA office in Big Rapids, Michigan, where we obtained an understanding of the accounting system and reviewed a sample of grant expenditures. We reviewed the criteria governing grant activities, including the OJP Financial Guide and relevant OMB Circulars and the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, we reviewed grant documents, including the application, award, budgets, and financial and progress reports. We also interviewed key personnel at ORA’s office. Accounting and Internal Controls According to the OJP Financial Guide, grant recipients are required to establish and maintain accounting and internal control systems to account accurately for funds awarded to them. Further, the accounting system should ensure, among other things, the identification and accounting for receipt and disposition of all funds, funds applied to each budget category included in the approved award, expenditures governed by any special and general provisions, and non-federal matching contributions. We reviewed ORA’s financial management system and its policies and procedures to assess ORA’s risk of non-compliance with laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the grant. To further assess risk, we obtained an understanding of the reporting process, examined grant records and reports prepared by XXX, and interviewed ORA personnel regarding award charges. We did not test the entirety of the internal control system or the financial management system for ORA as a whole. Our testing revealed internal control, accounting, and reporting deficiencies that are explained in more detail in the following sections.
Findings and Recommendations. Cisco Responsibilities • Integrate all project documents, findings, risk implications and recommendations in the Cloud Consumption Assessment Report: o risk analysis, including mitigation of potential risk exposure o analysis of cloud consumption, usage and trends; o identification of over-utilized and under-utilized services; o financial analysis; o recommendation for on-going management of cloud service providers. • Review the Cloud Consumption Assessment Report with Authorized Channel for comments and approval before it is formally completed and released. • Provide support up to two (2) hours to answer additional inquiries from final read-out to End User. Authorized Channel Responsibilities • Review the Cloud Consumption Assessment Report with Cisco for comments and approval. • Review the Cloud Consumption Assessment Report with End User’s stakeholders during final presentation.
