Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Scenario <br /> <br />Descriotion <br /> <br />A <br /> <br />Loan for one-half of the capital cost at 5 percent interest for 40 years and <br />a bond issue at 10 percent interest for 30 years for one-half the capital <br />cost plus the required financial reserves, <br /> <br />B <br /> <br />Loan for 100 percent of the capital cost at 5 percent interest for 40 years <br />and a loan at 10 percent interest for 30 years for the required financial <br />reserves, <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Loan for one-half of the capital cost at 5 percent interest for 40 years and <br />an interest-free loan for 40 years for one-half of the capital cost plus the <br />required financial reserves. <br /> <br />The annual debt service and the annual operating, maintenance and replacement (O,M&R) <br />costs were estimated for each alternative project system, The annual cost of the additional <br />water developed by each project alternative was calculated as the sum of the annual debt <br />service calculated under each financing scenario plus the annual O,M&R costs estimated for <br />the improvements, The unit cost per acre-foot of additional water was calculated by dividing <br />the total annual cost for improvements for each alternative by the improved water yield, <br /> <br />Table 2 compares the six proposed project alternatives in terms of potential service areas, <br />amount of additional water delivered, total capital costs, annual O,M&R costs for both the <br />existing systems and the alternative project improvements; and, under the three different <br />financing scenarios, the annual costs of the improvements and unit costs of the additional water <br />developed, <br /> <br />The project improved irrigation deliveries shown on Table 2 for the six alternative projects are <br />the increased water supplies developed by construction of the structural features of the <br />alternatives, They do not include the increased yields above the historic level of deliveries <br />which could be obtained by improvements in the present operations of the systems, <br />Accordingly, the improved irrigation water yields and annual unit costs of water shown in Table <br />2 are conservative, Inclusion of non-structural improvements as a component of the alternative <br />projects would increase the improved yields indicated and result in lower unit costs of additional <br />project water, <br /> <br />vii <br />