Condiciones de inicio de las mediciones multimodo
10. Una vez terminado el análisis, guarde la curva pulsando Salvar en la
Title
Initial
Weighting Description
Percent of Total Water Demand
Provided by the Project (by QWS) 100 The percentage of total demand for a QWS that the recommended project provides Amount of Water Provided by the
Project 100 Total water supply provided by the recommended project
Cost 100 Total cost of the recommended project
Mutually Benefits Another QWS 100 Recommended project that mutually benefits another QWS
Duration of Critical Scenario 100 The duration of the critical scenario associated with each recommended project
Community Impact 100 Minimizes environmental and community disturbance during construction activities
7.1.1.2
Scoring of Projects
Exhibit 7-3 summarizes scoring guidelines for each criterion that can be objectively scored for each project. EXHIBIT 7-3
Project Scoring Guidelines
Project Scoring Guidelines
Score Percent of Total Water Demand Provided by Project Amount of Water Provided by Project
Cost Mutually Benefits Another QWS
Duration of Critical Scenario
Community Impact
10 76-100% 76th percentile < $150,000 Benefits at 2 QWSs > 30 days Minimial Impact (project completed on QWS
property)
7 26-75% 26percentile th – 75th $1,000,000 $150,000 - -- 30 days Moderate Impact (project requires excavation at points (i.e.
control valve vault))
3 0-25% 0-25th percentile >$1,000,000 Benefits 1 QWS 1-3 days
Large Impact (project requires construction for > 200 feet of pipe off
QWS property, in roadways)
7.0—RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
With the criteria and scoring guidelines set, the next step is to assign scores for each project to calculate a total benefit score for each project. The scores are then summarized to demonstrate to what extent each project supports each criterion. Using this approach a prioritization team can quickly compare both the total benefits of any given project and to what extent each project scored relative to the criteria. Given the local nature of the projects identified in Exhibit 7-1, GEFA did not request the project team to prioritize the recommended projects at this time. If a prioritized list is produced later, it will resemble results used in various regional plans produced under the Georgia State-wide Water Management Plan as reflected below in Exhibit 7-4.
EXHIBIT 7-4
7.0—RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
8.0 Model Agreements and Summary of
Innovative Financing Best Practices
Improving the interconnectivity, resilience and reliability of the District’s water supply and delivery infrastructure will require the use of various mechanisms for arranging capital project financing and equitably distributing cost responsibilities. The viability of project financing arrangements will be largely dependent on the anticipated project costs, the number of benefitting parties, and identification of sufficient revenue streams to support the selected project financing option.
8.1 Financing Approaches
Project size, complexity, and the presence of multiple beneficiaries are all relevant in the consideration of financing strategies. In general, projects can be organized into two groups for financing and financial planning purposes:
• Independent Projects – These projects are internal to a QWS. As such, the project costs are nearly always limited, and there are effectively no cost allocation issues. While most interconnections could theoretically serve both QWSs, many interconnection projects are driven entirely by the needs of one of the two QWSs, and the realistic potential for utilization to benefit the other party is essentially zero.
• Shared Projects – These projects cover multiple QWSs within a local area. Costs may range from relatively minimal amounts to levels that could impact the rates charged by the water suppliers. These projects require allocation of cost responsibilities across more than one beneficiary. These cost allocations will ultimately impact water pricing within and across jurisdictional boundaries.
These two groups of projects may benefit from somewhat different financing approaches and levels of effort, but the financing needs of the projects identified in Section 7 to meet projected emergency demands are likely to be well satisfied by traditional utility system financing options. Current state and regional institutions, in
collaboration with water suppliers, have developed similar projects and have arranged to distribute cost responsibilities through various forms of service contracts and intergovernmental agreements.
8.1.1 Independent Projects
Many of the projects listed in Exhibit 7-1 may be readily financed by the individual QWSs. In fact, for projects costing less than a few million dollars, most forms of debt financing (excluding subsidized loans provided by GEFA) are not economical due to transaction costs. Also, the projects that are largely associated with an individual QWS do not present cost allocation issues, because costs are borne only by the QWS involved.
8.1.2 Shared Projects
The vast majority of the projects listed in Exhibit 7-1 that might be considered shared projects also do not present significant project finance challenges. The costs involved tend to be within the normal financing ranges managed by utilities, and in most cases the cost allocations tend to be straightforward. One exception to this general rule may be with respect to arrangements for emergency or standby service as were evaluated in this study, for which there is relatively limited precedent for cost sharing. However, a variety of different
arrangements have been used successfully to obtain project financing for locally shared projects. Benefitting providers have typically contributed cash or separately issued debt to finance allocated shares of project costs; however, in some cases separate legal entities with debt issuance authority have been created.
8.0—MODEL AGREEMENTS AND SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE FINANCING BEST PRACTICES
Larger shared projects have more project financing and cost allocation challenges, but few, if any, of the projects identified in Section 7 are likely to encounter such challenges. In the event that such projects were developed in the future, arrangements between multiple public water providers or a consortium of private interests, often with some form of state or regional agency sponsorship, are likely to meet the financing and funding needs.