17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Section 3: Alternatives Evaluation Water Supply Alternatives Study 3-2 DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. Water Supply Alternatives Study-Draft Report.docx Table 3-1. Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Weightings Criterion Definition Scoring Basis Weighting Operational Complexity Ease of operating and maintaining the system from a technical standpoint, considering organizational readiness and necessary staff qualifications/ certifications (e.g., ability to operate the project with existing staff resources), and the ability to enhance the system in the event of additional and/or more-stringent drinking water regulations. Changes to existing City operations are not required, minimal, or significant (e.g., new staff and/or certifications needed).15% Institutional Complexity Ease of implementation and management from an institutional standpoint (e.g., willingness of external partners, complexity of agreements and administration). No partners needed (City can pursue independently. Otherwise, partner needed and is either: willing to partner with firm commitment, willing to partner with tentative interest (but no commitment), or not willing to partner. 10% Cost metrics used in the alternatives evaluation include capital costs and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. 3.3 Evaluation Results Evaluation results, discussed in this section, are presented as benefit scores, estimated costs, and combined benefits and costs. 3.3.1 Benefit Scores Figure 3-1 shows relative benefit for the four shortlisted alternatives in ranked order, based on an aggregate score using the five criteria presented in Table 3-1. Details on the scoring are included in Appendix A. Figure 3-1. Relative benefit scores of each alternative