Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 4 receive an up-front concession fee of $48,000,000. The security for the financing was a lease for the treatment system. This form of project delivery approach is known as a Build Operate Transfer. Facility: Developer: 23 MGD WWTP, 11 pump stations, collection system Poseidon Resource Corp., d/b/a Triton Ocean State L.L.C. Subcontractors: Professional Services Group (“PSG”) - Operator Metcalf & Eddy (“M&E”)/Hart Engineering-Design/Builder Project Summary • City leases system to Triton Ocean State L.L.C. • Triton secures project financing on lease payments. • Triton pays Cranston a $48 million concession fee and agrees to construct capital improvements necessary to guarantee performance of facilities. • PSG and M&E are subcontractors for O&M and Design-Build components of project. • Parent Company of Air & Water Technologies is guarantor. Benefits • Risk mitigation • Performance guarantees • Rate stabilization • Improved bond rating • Off-balance sheet financing • Defeased $26 million in Municipal GO debt • $11 million of capital system improvements • Established $6 million general fund surplus Savings Anticipated: $ 76 million Present Status As of 2000, Triton Ocean State was in the third year of the concession contract with the City. The initial $11,000,000 of Planned System Improvements (PSIs) were constructed and are operating. A second set of facility modifications, known as the Advance Wastewater Treatment modifications (AWT), also completed and were in the process of being tested and accepted. The City received an improved bond rating as a result of the elimination of the municipal debt and the creation of a surplus. The PSIs have significantly improved the performance of the collection and treatment system. The operator has made additional 4-4 Texas Water Development Board B1381-Sect4
Examples of Recent or Ongoing Alternative Delivery Projects capital investments in the plant that have a value of more than $2,000,000. These investments optimize facility performance, reduce operating costs, and reduce odor emissions. Other capital improvements made by the operator were performed to improve the operability or performance of the original PSIs. Significant staff turnover at the City of Cranston has diluted the City's first hand involvement in the Service Agreement. North Brunswick, New Jersey Background The City of North Brunswick is a middle class community of approximately 32,000 residents. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, North Brunswick was experiencing challenges related to growth. The financial pressure for new and expanded municipal infrastructure coupled with a prevailing anti-tax increase sentiment caused the municipality to pursue alternatives to conventional project delivery. The City solicited proposals from vendors for a concession type contract for the operation of the City’s wastewater collection system and the water utility. US Water L.L.C. was selected by the City to enter into a 20-year full service contract. The services included utility billing and management of revenues. A contract was signed February 1996 and the financial closing occurred in June 1996. Facility: Developer: Subsidiaries: Project Summary 10 MGD WTP, two storage tanks/pump stations, water distribution and wastewater collection system. U.S. Water L.L.C. North Brunswick Water L.L.C. • Township leases water collection treatment & distribution system to North Brunswick Water, L.L.C. • U.S. Water secures loan on lease payments. • U.S. Water pays North Brunswick Township a $6 million up-front concession fee with annual royalty payments of $ 23.9 million over the life of the concession. • U.S. Water agrees to make capital improvements necessary to assure the installation of ARM water meters. • Parent Company guarantee(s) project. Benefits • Risk mitigation • Performance guarantees B1381-Sect4 R. W. Beck 4-5
Page 1 and 2: Alternative Project Delivery Texas
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents VI. School Distri
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary statutory/regulat
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Areas of Concern.
Page 9 and 10: Section 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction
Page 11 and 12: Implementation of Stricter Regulati
Page 13 and 14: Introduction TABLE 1-1 GLOBAL WATER
Page 15 and 16: Introduction These large private fi
Page 17 and 18: Section 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DE
Page 19 and 20: Traditional Design-Bid-Build (“DB
Page 21 and 22: Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 27 and 28: Engineer-Procure-Construct (“EPC
Page 37: Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 40 and 41: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TRADITI
Page 42 and 43: Section 3 One of the critical areas
Page 44 and 45: Section 3 Figure 3-2 DB or DBO Appr
Page 46 and 47: Section 3 TABLE 3-1 POTENTIAL AREAS
Page 48 and 49: Section 4 • The company, BexarMet
Page 52 and 53: Section 4 • Rate stabilization
Page 54 and 55: Section 4 Pursuant to stringent tim
Page 56 and 57: Appendix A GLOSSARY - B - BOOT: Bui
Page 58 and 59: LEGAL REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE DELIVER
Page 60 and 61: Legal Review of Alternative Deliver
Page 64 and 65: Wastewater Legal Review of Alternat
Page 68 and 69: San Antonio Water System Legal Revi
Page 74 and 75: Neil Callahan - National Director f
Page 76 and 77: Comparison Of Traditional Vs. Alter
Page 78 and 79: Comparison Table Comparison Of Trad
Page 80 and 81: Areas of Concern Potential Areas Of
Page 82 and 83: ISSUES CHECKLIST Introduction The d
Page 84 and 85: Issues Checklist • Public input o
Page 86 and 87: Design-Build-Operate (DBO) Issues C

Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?