Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Implementation Plan <br /> <br />~ <br />."., <br />c:c <br />... <br /> <br />Cost effectiveness is defined as the program's cost per ton of salt prevented <br />from entering the river system or removed from the river system, <br />Conceptually, cost effectiveness (cost per ton) is analogous to determining <br />the cost per mile to own and operate a cat, That computation combines the <br />annual cost of loan payments with the annual operating expenses (gas, <br />maintenance, etc,) and divides this by the miles travelled each year, <br /> <br />The key to understanding this approach is to appreciate that even though <br />the Government may not necessarily borrow money to construct facilities, <br />the program evaluates all projects as if the money is borrowed from a <br />lending institution and repaid in annual installments, This process yields <br />an annual cost to match the annual salt removal, or cost per ton, This <br />economic evaluation principle is required by the Economic and <br />Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land <br />Resources Implementation Studies, March 1983, It also lends consistency in <br />the comparison of federally financed projects to non-federally financed <br />alternatives proposed by those who must borrow funds, <br /> <br />Computing Cost Effectiveness for Non-federally Financed Projects.- <br />Typically, the fee paid by the program per ton of salinity control is the <br />project's cost effectiveness, If the fee per ton varies through time, the costs <br />must be averaged (time-valued) by capitalizing the costs and then <br />annualizing them to get a time-valued average cost, Both capitalization and <br />annUalization use the same interest rates used in all projects (currently <br />about 8 percent), This process accounts for the time value of money, An <br />arithmetic average of the nominal payments does not properly account for <br />this value, For example, two projects with the same arithmetic average <br />could have two completely different payment patterns, A proposal with <br />high payments upfront is not as economically desirable as one that delays <br />costs to the program, Time-valuing the privately financed proposals adjusts <br />them to be fully comparable to the upfront funding and time-valuing of <br />federally financed alternatives, <br /> <br />Computing Cost Effectiveness for Federally Financed Projects.- <br />Cost effectiveness is computed in three steps by: <br /> <br />Step 1 <br /> <br />Annualize the One. Time Costs: The capital costs of the project are <br />converted to annual costs by amortizing the capital costs much like <br />the cost of a house that is mortgaged to find the monthly payments; <br />but in this case, the payment (or annual cost) is an annual value, The <br />costs are amortized over the expected life of the project at the current <br />planning interest rate (currently about 8 percent), <br /> <br />The costs should include all one-time capital costs to the program for <br />technical assistance, education, overhead, wildlife replacement, other <br />mitigation, design, construction, and other construction-related costs, <br /> <br />12 <br />