May 18, 2018 /Sports News – Local Tigers outhit Cougars in 9-3 victory FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPROVO, Utah — Starting pitcher Ricky Reynoso held BYU baseball to one run through six innings Friday night to lead Pacific to a 9-3 win at Larry H. Miller Ballpark.“We came out a little bit passive and made mental mistakes early and got ourselves in a hole we couldn’t get out of,” BYU head coach Mike Littlewood said. “It was a microcosm of the season tonight with Keaton Kringlen getting a triple and a single with nobody on and going 0-for-3 with guys in scoring position, but that’s kind of the way it’s been this year.BYU (22-27, 11-15 West Coast Conference) only managed to score three runs off of a total of 12 hits while Pacific (21-29, 10-16 WCC) blasted 16 hits for nine runs. David Clawson went 2-of-4 from the plate adding an RBI for the Cougars. Kringlen tripled on one of his two hits.In the second inning, the Tigers put two runners in scoring position with no outs. A sacrifice fly sent one runner across the plate for their first run. A single to left field sent the second Tiger home and was followed by an error and a sacrifice bunt for a 3-0 lead.A Pacific single down the middle in the fourth sent another runner home to increase the advantage to 4-0.The Tigers didn’t back down as Matthew Tarantino hit a three-run homer to left field in the fifth inning for a 7-0 lead.In the sixth inning, Kringlen bounced a triple off the fence in center field. With one out, Clawson singled to right field to send Kringlen home for the first run of the night to trail 7-1.Keaton Glover led off the seventh with a solo blast over the left field fence to extend Pacific’s lead to 8-1.Nate Favero gave BYU momentum in the bottom of the eighth with a single into right field. Clawson reached first on a fielder’s choice while Favero advanced to third on a Pacific error. Favero gave the Cougars their second run of the game and Clawson advanced to second on a sacrifice fly by Casey Jacobsen.Koby Kelton came in as a pinch hitter for BYU and doubled to left center scoring Clawson to close the gap 9-3.The Cougars return to Miller Park for the final game of the season on Saturday at 1 p.m. MDT. Live coverage will be available through BYUtv and audio broadcasts can be heard on BYU Radio (Sirius XM 143) and ESPN 960. Tags: Baseball/BYU Cougars/WCC Robert Lovell Written by
Brad James Written by February 6, 2021 /Sports News – Local Snow Men’s Basketball Routs Casper Friday Night FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailEPHRAIM, Utah-Ross Reeves netted 22 points and 5 rebounds and the Snow Badgers smacked Casper CC 104-84 Friday at the Activity Center in non-conference men’s basketball action. Travis Wagstaff added 20 points on 8-16 from the field for the Badgers, who improved to 5-2 with the win. Snow shot just under 55 percent from the game. John Hart led the Thunderbirds in defeat with 21 points on 8-16 from the field. Snow commences Scenic West Athletic Conference play Tuesday at 7:00 pm against the College of Southern Nevada Coyotes t the Activity Center.
The open season is the first stage of Enbridge determining whether there is sufficient commercial interest for its offering to provide priority access on the Mainline for terms of 8 – 20 years Image: Enbridge provides update on Canadian Mainline open season process. Photo: courtesy of Alexas_Fotos from Pixabay. Enbridge Inc. (TSX: ENB) (NYSE: ENB) (Enbridge or the Company) provided an update today on the Canadian Mainline open season regulatory process.On August 2, 2019, Enbridge commenced an open season, offering firm capacity on its crude oil Mainline system, effective upon expiry of the Competitive Toll Settlement that is in place until July 1, 2021. The open season is the first stage of Enbridge determining whether there is sufficient commercial interest for its offering to provide priority access on the Mainline for terms of 8 – 20 years.The Mainline offering is in direct response to customers’ desire for low cost transportation to important downstream markets and guaranteed access to the Enbridge Mainline, for the benefit of our industry and all stakeholders. The offering reflected in the open season terms is based on significant consultation with the entire industry over a period of 18 months and reflects numerous enhancements proposed by potential shippers.Since embarking on the open season, certain parties, including shippers and non-shippers, have filed letters and an application to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) requesting among other things that the CER declare that Enbridge may not offer contract carriage on the Mainline system until the terms, conditions and tolls of the contract offering are approved by the CER, and if it is not possible for the CER to issue such a decision by September 18, 2019, that it stay the open season pending a decision.The CER established an expedited process and timetable for other interested parties to submit comments by noon today and for Enbridge to respond to those submissions by September 11, 2019. The CER process centers around determining whether the CER has the authority to stay the open season pending the CER’s decision on the submissions and whether an open season should be held before or after the CER has decided on any future application that may be filed by Enbridge for firm service.Enbridge believes that its open season is entirely appropriate and consistent with a well-established practice of ensuring commercial support before seeking regulatory approval, a view that is shared by a range of customers who have submitted letters to the CER today. These letters indicate support for contract carriage on the Mainline, acknowledge Enbridge’s willingness to negotiate the terms and conditions of service in developing the open season offering, and support the open season proceeding as planned to ensure that its results can fully inform any application that Enbridge may file with the CER. Source: Company Press Release
Other activities reported to have been undertaken by the Libraries in the past year are over 1000 document restoration projects, several exhibitions – including those for the Magna Carta and World Book Day – and the processing of what the report names “arguably the most significant modern literary archive to come to the Bodleian Library in thirty years”, the Alan Bennett archive.An expense conspicuously absent from the report was the cost to the libraries of books stolen or lost by borrowers. As any student who has used SOLO, the University’s online search catalogue, will know some books are consigned to the ambiguous fate of “Lost, presumed missing”, but it is unknown how much these lost texts cost the libraries to replace each year.The report mentions the implementation of “book detection systems” in the Old Bodleian Library throughout 2009, implying that there are some concerns over the security of the texts available on open access shelves.It has been suggested that the cost of lost and missing books is incorporated into the category of “Operational Expenditure”, which totalled over £8.8 million, a figure which could potentially be reduced – therefore tackling part of the total budget deficit – if tighter security measures were enforced.A member of staff at Library Services stated that the cost of replacing any missing books would fall on the individual faculties and come out of their general budget for purchasing new materials.The representative went on to explain that although problems can arise when the lost books are now out of print, the overall cost of this issue to the Libraries is relatively low compared to the total expenditure.However, the report forecasts a more positive financial outlook for the Libraries over the coming years, stating the Services’ trust in the University which “proposes to resolve the issue from 2010–11 when a new services funding mechanism will be introduced”, despite the likelihood that the Libraries of Oxford will be receiving less University funding in the coming years.A footnote of the report suggests that the Libraries will potentially be required to cut their reliance on the block grant by 10% over the next three years, although this is not yet confirmed.Nonetheless, the Library Services remain optimistic, highlighting their focus on “strategic priorities” to maintain financial equilibrium over the coming years. Oxford University Library Services revealed in last week’s Annual Report that they had a budget deficit of over £2.5 million for the year 2008-9, surpassing the previous year’s overspend by £1,000.Their overall income, of £31,756,183, provided mainly by a block grant from the University, fell far short of their expenditure of £34,292,288.The report admitted that “For some time the Libraries have laboured under a deficit, with insufficient revenue to cover the costs of their services”. It also reiterated the vital importance of donations in covering the shortfall not met by the University’s grant of over £21 million.However, the report also stated that the actual overspend of £2.54 million was less than the forecast £2.6 million, indicating the success of the “number of efficiencies and innovations to reduce expenditure” implemented by staff. By far the largest expense is staffing, which eats up £18.8m of the annual budget. With a total of 562 staff in July, this amounts to an average wage of £33,396 per member of staff.The section whose expenditure has increased by the largest proportion is Information Provision and Access, which saw an increase from £4,348,746 for 2007-8 to £6,083,212 for the previous year.Much of the increased expenditure has arisen from the drive to go digital, with the Library Services dedicating £4.4 million on acquiring electronic resources and back copies. These include the historical archives of the Guardian/Observer newspapers and the London Illustrated News, as well as resources such as ‘Cambridge Histories Online’ and the ‘Universal Database of Russian Military and Security Periodicals’.Among other online successes in the previous year has been the introduction of SOLO, enabling users to search a database of almost all University and College libraries, and the upgrade to OXLIP+, which allows remote access to the library catalogues. Downloads of online journal articles have almost doubled since 2005-6, rising from 3.3 million to 6.1 million, the Libraries have invested in an increasingly popular method of research.
UAEM UK have requested that the full licensing terms of the Oxford University vaccine are made public, to clarify the safeguards in place and to prevent the creation of potential monopoly-generation protections. They also have requested that Astra Zeneca declare their manufacturing costs, to verify their commitment to pricing a vaccine product “at cost” during the pandemic. The campaign has developed a mapping tool to track public funding of COVID-19 research and development in universities. It visualises information synthesised from government databases and publicly funded institutions. The tool is currently tracking the funding of university groups in 13 countries. UAEM UK told Cherwell that their tool aims to highlight the role of the public sector in research, because the “contribution of the public is virtually never reflected in the pricing, accessibility, and affordability of the final drug.” Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), a global network of university students, is campaigning for affordable, global access to a COVID-19 vaccine. UAEM UK talked to Cherwell about their endeavours “to ensure that publicly funded COVID-19 vaccines developed in Oxford are widely and equitably accessible to those who need it most.” AstraZeneca state they have the capacity to produce one billion doses through 2020 and 2021. UAEM UK note that agreements for “at least 400 million doses” have been made so far, 100 million for the UK and 300 million for the US: “That’s forty percent gone.” Oxford University have set out guidance to organisations about the licensing of University intellectual property about COVID-19 related products and services. It states that the default approach will be to “offer non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support free of charge, at-cost, or cost + limited margin supply as appropriate, and only for the duration of the pandemic, as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO).” UAEM UK note that Oxford University and researchers have “said all the right things so far and made lots of positive steps”, but want this to turn “into concrete action that challenges the dominant model of excessive pharmaceutical profits and exclusivity.” UAEM UK have been assessing the licensing agreements for the University of Oxford COVID-19 vaccine. They have concerns about “potential stockpiling by rich countries, namely the USA and the UK, to secure access to the vaccine before others.” UAEM is campaigning for universities to sign the ‘Open COVID’ pledge. Developed by an international group of scientists and lawyers, this encourages organisations to commit to providing non-exclusive, royalty-free licenses for their products, processes, and information for up to one year after the pandemic. Emily Swift, an Oxford medical student who is part of the UAEM UK campaign, told Cherwell: “It’s hard for people to access this information from fairly dense websites. The goal is to allowed people who are interested to find where their money is going… Hopefully this is a way to hold institutions a bit more accountable for what people’s money is being used for.” A statement made by AstraZeneca this week states that it is “collaborating with a number of countries and multilateral organisations to make the University of Oxford’s vaccine widely accessible around the world in an equitable manner.” It also states that it is engaging with international organisations and governments “for the fair allocation and distribution of the vaccine around the world.” UAEM UK also wrote to the Jenner Institute, in collaboration with other organisations including Just Treatment and Global Justice Now, to request that the deal between Oxford and AstraZeneca be made public, and to explain how it safeguards fair access for all. UAEM UK expressed concerns to Cherwell that this means non-exclusive licensing of the vaccine will be limited to the duration of the pandemic. Once the WHO downgrades the classification of the virus spread, prices may increase, which is “likely to disproportionately affect countries and parts of society which are unable to rapidly manufacture or access vaccines and other treatments once they become available.” “The public deserves a return on public investment by ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are the global public goods which the UK public want – there was a recent survey by [the Wellcome Trust] which supported the overwhelming public majority behind universal equitable access to a vaccine.” They have not yet received a response to the letter. A University spokesperson recommended to Cherwell that questions about the University policy for licensing COVID-19 related intellectual property be directed to AstraZeneca, as they are handling manufacturing. UAEM UK told Cherwell: “Given the state of global access to medicines, we feel that more is necessary and we need more information. We also want the companies involved, so far only AstraZeneca, to make good on their promises to make the vaccine affordable and accessible to everyone – we haven’t seen any concrete evidence of this yet. While everyone is saying the right things, these still need to be turned into actions.” Image from mapping tool created by UAEM student volunteers.
Ocean City Primary School was first constructed in 1965, and much of the building has seen no major renovation since then.Ocean City voters approved a $2.5 million school bond referendum in a 755-239 vote on Tuesday, March 11.Voter turnout among Ocean City’s 8,940 registered voters was 11.11 percent, according to totals from the Cape May County Board of Elections.The vote total included a 93-54 margin in favor among mail-in votes.The final tally is unofficial. Official totals — including provisional ballots — will be posted on Monday, March 17.The vote approves borrowing $2,497,421 to help pay for a renovation of the Ocean City Primary School, which was constructed in 1965.The school needs a new roof, heating and cooling systems, plumbing and electrical systems, windows and doors. Most classrooms have no air-conditioning, and some of the windows are 48-year-old originals, single-glazed and lined with asbestos.The approved borrowing means the owner of a (not-quite-median) $500,000 home in Ocean City would pay an extra $15.39 in school taxes annually for a bond issue period of 10 years, according to School Business Administrator Pat Yacovelli.The total projected cost for the project is $6,653,368. Ocean City will receive $2,399,279 from a state Regular Operating District (ROD) grant for school construction. The Ocean City School District will contribute about $1.8 million from a capital reserve fund.Construction is not expected to take place until summer 2015, but the district wanted to take advantage of the state grant and low interest rates.
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese space experts say they will examine soil samples brought back from a distant asteroid in an attempt to find the source of heat that altered the celestial body, in their search for clues to the origin of the solar system and life on Earth. Scientists at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency say they have made a preliminary examination of 5.4 grams (0.19 ounce) of soil which the Hayabusa2 spacecraft brought back in December from the asteroid Ryugu, more than 300 million kilometers (190 million miles) from Earth. The scientists say the asteroid was exposed billions of years ago to extremely high temperatures, possibly caused by an internal source of heat or planetary collisions rather than heat from the sun.
Vermont Employment Incentive Growth Program AuditJune 12, 2008 State Auditor Tom Salmon Reviews First Year of the “Vermont Employment Growth Incentive” Program Says New Policies Could Reduce Excessive Incentive Awards MONTPELIER – A prominent new State economic development assistance program is in general compliance with State law, says State Auditor Tom Salmon, but several policy changes to the program could save the State millions. For the full report, go to www.auditor.vermont.gov(link is external) and click on “Audits and Reports” and then click on “Special Audits.” The Legislature asked the Auditor to review the first year of the Vermont Employment Growth Incentive program – VEGI, or the “Veggie” program as it’s sometimes called – which began in January 2007.The Vermont Economic Progress Council (VEPC) authorized $9.7 million in incentives to 13 companies in 2007. Incentive authorizations ranged from a low of $71,302 to a high of $1.9 million; the average was about $750,000. If the companies meet their job creation, payroll and investment targets for the previous calendar, they receive a cash award from the Dept. of Taxes that is paid out in installments over 5 years. The 13 companies were projected, over the next 6 years, to create 1,310 qualifying jobs, $60 million in total new qualifying payroll, and to make $116 million worth of new capital investments.The report found the program in substantial compliance with rules and regulations, but noted that policies affecting how awards are calculated may result in the State subsidizing some economic activity that would normally occur at a company.”It’s not a good use of scarce State funds to subsidize growth that is likely to happen anyway,” Salmon added. The Auditor is recommending that the Council change its policy so that it can use a company’s own growth rate – rather than the “industry sector” growth rate which includes similar companies – in its incentive award calculations. “The current approach to evaluating a proposed development is to exclude the normal business growth of a company from the award calculations because the purpose of the program is to encourage economic activity that is above and beyond the growth pattern in an industry sector,” Salmon said.Salmon noted that using the “industry sector” growth rate, instead of a company’s own historical growth rate in the calculations, is an approach that has been approved by the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee. “However, the ‘industry sector’ approach is costing us money,” he said. Salmon said, “We could save money by doing more to ensure we are subsidizing only ‘stretch goals’ – the jobs and investments that are above a company’s normal growth trends.””We reviewed the applications of two companies with employment history in Vermont and found in both cases that the company’s particular growth rate was much higher than the industry sector growth rate,” Salmon said. “Using the industry growth rate, a lot of the company’s typical expected growth was included in the award calculations,” he noted, “and new payroll is the key factor in determining the total incentive amount.” “In one company, the payroll to be subsidized over the award period was a total of $819,148 using the industry growth rate, but only $56,138 using the applicant’s own growth rate,” he said.In another award, the projected payroll that qualified for an incentive over the award period was a total of $12 million using the industry average growth rate, but just $1.5 million using the company’s own growth rate,” Salmon said. Since incentives are largely based on a project’s payroll that is above the background growth rate, the choice of growth rates is important. The Auditor estimated that if historical growth rates were used in these two applications, the incentive authorizations could have been reduced by approximately $1.2 million. “There seems to be strong evidence that the State is paying for significant activity that probably would have happened anyway based on a company’s history; it’s just being masked by using a combined industry sector growth rate,” Salmon noted. “This is a policy that should be reviewed by the Joint Fiscal Committee,” he said. The report also found that the State’s consultants operating the cost-benefit model for the Council used an outdated industry classification code in calculating one company’s award. Using the wrong code resulted in employing a 1.6 percent growth rate in the award calculations, rather than the correct industry classification code which had a growth rate of 4.2 percent. The effect of this error was to award $484,000 in additional incentives over what would have been awarded had the correct industry code been used. “The Council has declined to address this error, but it is an honest mistake that should be corrected,” Salmon said. “The Council should quickly approve a policy which allows it to revise awards based on inadvertent errors,” he urged.Auditors also found that: one company had begun making project investments before final approval by the Economic Progress Council, contrary to guidelines;a checklist to guide the review of information submitted by a company about why incentives are necessary is not being used by VEPC staff;of three companies reviewed that said they had to choose between Vermont and out-of-state locations offering assistance, only one provided required contact information on the agency offering incentives, making it extremely difficult to verify “but for” statements of the two other applicants; there is no requirement for a company to maintain pay at 160 percent of the minimum wage if the minimum wage increases beyond the hiring year; in one case, it was not evident that the individuals signing an application were authorized to sign on behalf of the company; and the $10 million annual cap on incentive awards and the 80 percent ratio applied to the preliminary fiscal benefit amount are important safeguards for prudent fiscal management. Salmon said the Employment Growth Incentive program appeared to be much simpler to administer than a previous tax credit incentive program, and focuses more directly on supporting the creation of good-paying jobs with benefits. However, Salmon noted that a critical decision to award incentives is difficult to audit. “The nine volunteer Council members must, to the best of their judgment, vote on whether or not a proposed project would likely happen without incentives,” Salmon said. “If they determine that a project is likely to occur without the incentive award, the company’s application is denied. It’s a difficult decision to make,” he noted. Salmon added that the decision becomes more important considering that the awards are not based on a company’s financial need and that companies are not required to furnish financial statements, business plans or tax returns with applications. Salmon said the report also recommends that the Council get an assessment from an independent source to help members address the question of whether or not projects might proceed without State support. “It’s somewhat unfair to ask the staff that advertises the program and encourages companies to apply to also provide an impartial evaluation of the company’s application,” Salmon noted.
continue reading » NAFCU last week attended a hearing on a defendant credit union’s motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case. NAFCU remains active on ADA, engaging with various stakeholders on this issue and working with credit unions that are facing litigation.NAFCU Executive Vice President of Government Affairs and General Counsel Carrie Hunt and Vice President of Regulatory Compliance Brandy Bruyere attended the hearing, as well as representatives from the Maryland-D.C. Credit Union Association.The judge, T.S. Ellis III in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Alexandria Division, heard arguments on issues such as the fact that the plaintiff is not a member or eligible to join the sued credit union and whether the plaintiff has any standing in this case. 7SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr
NCUA outlined its primary areas of supervisory focus in its first Letter to Credit Unions (19-CU-01) of 2019. The letter also contains information on full implementation of an extended exam cycle in 2019.Agency examiners will continue using the streamlined small credit union exam program procedures for most credit unions that have assets under $50 million.For all other credit unions, examiners will conduct risk-focused examinations, concentrating on the areas of highest risk, new products and services, and compliance with federal regulations.In 2019, NCUA examiners will have increased flexibility to conduct suitable examination work offsite. In the agency’s Flexible Examination Program (FLEX) pilot, examiners were able to conduct as much as 35% of examination time offsite, according to NCUA. ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr continue reading »