ROMANIA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Agreement for Advisory Services on assistance to the Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration on Harmonizing State and EU Funded Projects in Regions Dated May 27, 2014 Component 2 Evaluation of the Portfolio of Regional Development Investments Projects Prioritization Criteria for Local Infrastructure Development Projects - Final Report – December 26, 2014 Project co-financed from the European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OPTA) 2007-2013 This report was prepared by a core team comprised of Jean-Francois Marteau, Radoslaw Czapski, Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu, Sebastian Burduja, Antonio Nunez, Marius Cristea, Ciprian Moldovan, Raularian Rusu, Titus Man, Aurel Rizescu, Florian G ăman, Oana Luca, Andrei Stănescu, Costel Todor, Mircea Tulea, Alina Armașu, Cătalin Florea, Cristian Postolache, and Mădălin Iliescu. The report benefited from thoughtful comments by peer reviewers Simon Ellis, Maria Claudia Pachon, Victor Giosan, Thierry Davy, Gabriel Ioniță, Violeta Alexandru, and Elena Tudose. The team would like to thank Juan Gaviria and Elisabeth Huybens for the advice, support, and guidance provided throughout the elaboration of this report. The team would also like to thank the counterparts in the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration for the timely feedback, the support offered in the elaboration of this study, and the excellent collaboration throughout. Last but not least, the team thanks the Romanian National Institute of Statistics for the close cooperation in providing critical data. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views and position of the Executive Directors of the World Bank, the European Union, or the Government of Romania. iii iv Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................. v List of Tables..................................................................................................................vi List of Acronyms........................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ix Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Objective and Scope .................................................................................................... 4 Audiences .................................................................................................................. 6 Report Structure ......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter I: Context .......................................................................................................... 9 Romania’s Local Infrastructure: Needs, Priorities, and Funding .......................................... 9 The Imperative of Harmonized Investments ...................................................................13 The Task at Hand: Current Challenges and Opportunities .................................................14 Optimal Project Selection: Absorption, Impact, Legitimacy, and Capacity............................15 Absorption (efficiency) .............................................................................................16 Impact (effectiveness)..............................................................................................16 Legitimacy (clarity, fairness, and transparency) ...........................................................17 Capacity (feasibility) ................................................................................................17 Customized Selection Models: Project Size and Sector .....................................................17 Project size ............................................................................................................18 Project sector .........................................................................................................20 Chapter II: The National Program for Local Development (PNDL) ........................................23 Allocation of PNDL Funds to Counties............................................................................25 Preparation of Project Proposals and County-Level Prioritization.......................................27 Project Selection, Prioritization, and Contracting by the MRDPA .......................................29 Implementation .........................................................................................................31 Post-Implementation ..................................................................................................32 Chapter III: Good Practices of Project Selection for EU-Funded Programs in Comparison with the PNDL......................................................................................................................33 Pre-application and general overview of programmes .....................................................34 The Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013........................................................34 The Sectoral Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013 ......................................36 The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013...................................38 Application ................................................................................................................40 The Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013........................................................40 The Sectoral Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013 ......................................45 The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013...................................46 Implementation .........................................................................................................49 Post-Implementation ..................................................................................................50 i Chapter IV: Assessment and Policy Measures for the Overall PNDL Project Selection Model ..51 1) The MRDPA Prepares the Program ............................................................................53 1.1. Conduct consultations to inform program design...................................................53 1.2. Run awareness-raising and information campaigns ...............................................54 1.3. Design a pre-application filter for PNDL proposals .................................................55 1.4. Appoint Liaison Persons (LPs) to support potential beneficiaries...............................56 1.5. Organize training sessions to help applicants prepare better projects .......................57 2) Applicants Develop Initial Technical Documentation ....................................................57 2.1. Avoid contracting design of technical documentations centrally...............................57 2.2. Promote improved contracts to hold service providers accountable ..........................58 2.3. Revise the policy on cost standards......................................................................59 3) Local/County Councils Submit Applications to the MRDPA ............................................60 3.1. Improve conformity of PNDL applications submitted to the MRDPA ..........................60 3.2. Develop and publish a PNDL Applicant Guide ........................................................62 3.3. Define a reasonable list of eligible expenditures ....................................................62 3.4. Establish a permanent helpdesk ..........................................................................63 3.5. Clarify conditions for submission of applications directly to MRDPA..........................63 4) The MRDPA Evaluates, Selects, and Prioritizes Proposals ..............................................64 4.1. Exclude projects that are not recommended for any financing .................................65 4.2. Decide whether proposed projects are eligible for EU funding..................................65 4.3. Perform administrative check and technical & financial evaluation...........................65 4.4. Prioritize projects based on clear, objective, and transparent criteria........................66 4.5. Set up a mechanism for field visits before contracting ............................................66 5) The MRDPA and Beneficiaries Sign the Contracts.........................................................67 5.1. Introduce multi-year budgeting and programming.................................................67 5.2. Conduct post-contracting training with PNDL beneficiaries .....................................69 6) Beneficiaries Begin Project Implementation................................................................69 6.1. Strengthen verifications of reimbursement requests...............................................70 6.2. Enhance overall monitoring systems ....................................................................71 7) Projects Are Completed ...........................................................................................71 7.1. Establish an ex-post M&E system with clear performance indicators ........................72 7.2. Implement knowledge-sharing mechanisms..........................................................72 Chapter V: Proposed Prioritization Criteria for Enhanced Selection of PNDL Projects .............74 Core Elements of Optimal Prioritization .........................................................................75 The Strategy...........................................................................................................75 The Program ..........................................................................................................75 The Timeline ..........................................................................................................76 The Budget ............................................................................................................76 The Priorities..........................................................................................................77 The First Step to Proper Prioritization: Setting a Multi-annual Budget ................................77 The Second Step to Proper Prioritization: Setting Clear Priorities.......................................78 The Local Priorities Scenario .....................................................................................78 The EU Priorities Scenario.........................................................................................79 The Investment Need Priorities Scenario.....................................................................81 ii Proposal for PNDL Priorities Scenario .........................................................................83 Proposed Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Investments .....................................................84 County roads..........................................................................................................85 Communal roads ....................................................................................................88 Water and Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................................................91 Social infrastructure ................................................................................................98 Proposed PNDL 2014-2020 budget allocation by counties .............................................. 109 Chapter VI: Proposed Monitoring System for the PNDL .................................................... 112 Performance Indicators............................................................................................. 112 General Performance Indicators.............................................................................. 113 Road Performance Indicators.................................................................................. 115 Water and Wastewater Performance Indicators ........................................................ 116 Social Infrastructure Performance Indicators............................................................. 117 Monitoring Committee ............................................................................................. 118 Monitoring the abosrbtion capacity of PNDL beneficiaries.............................................. 120 Annex 1: Simplified Criteria of the Government Decree of September 2013 to Prioritize Projects for the 2014 Budget, by Stage of the Project Cycle ............................................................ 121 Annex 2: PNDL – Annex 2 to Methodological Norms ......................................................... 123 Annex 3: Evaluation Grid for County Roads and Urban Roads (ROP 2007-2013)..................... 125 Annex 4: Evaluation Grid for Axis 3 – 3.1 Health infrastructure (outpatient departments) and 3.4. Education Infrastructure (Compulsory schools) (ROP 2007-2013) .................................. 131 Annex 5: Project Check-list for SOP Environment 2007-2013 Water and Wastewater Projects. 136 Annex 6: Evaluation Grid for Development of Rural Areas (PNDR 2007-2013) ....................... 143 Annex 7: Triage Grid for Existent Technical Documentation without a Financing Agreement ... 149 Annex 8: Conformity Checklist for Technical Projects ........................................................ 155 Annex 9: Recommendations for an improved PNDL conformity checklist ............................. 155 Annex 10: The Methodology for the elaboration of the LHDI .............................................. 161 Local Human Development Index by counties and residence, for 2002 and 2011 ................ 163 Annex 11. The Financial Sustainability Index for County Councils and Local Councils .............. 164 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margins for County Councils .............................................. 165 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margins for Local Councils ................................................. 167 Annex 12. Prioritization of funds allocation for county road development, by county ............ 256 Annex 13. Prioritization of funds allocation for communal road development, by county ....... 259 Annex 14. Prioritization of funds allocation for water infrastructure, by water region ............ 262 Annex 15. Prioritization of funds allocation for wastewater infrastructure, by water region.... 265 Annex 16. Prioritization of funds allocation for health infrastructure, by county.................... 268 Annex 17. Prioritization of funds allocation for education infrastructure, by county............... 273 Annex 18. Prioritization of funds allocation for cultural infrastructure, by county .................. 276 Annex 19. Prioritization of funds allocation for sports infrastructure, by county .................... 281 Annex 20. Allocation by county of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for county roads (in mil. Euro).......................................................................................................................... 284 Annex 21. Allocation by county of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for communal roads (in mil. Euro).................................................................................................................... 287 iii Annex 22. Allocation by water region of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for water and wastewater infrastructure (in mil. Euro) .......................................................................... 290 Annex 23. Allocation by county of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for social infrastructure (in mil. Euro).................................................................................................................... 293 iv List of Figures Figure 1. Endowment with public services infrastructure (access to piped water) .....................9 Figure 2. Endowment with public services infrastructure (access to sewage) ......................... 10 Figure 3. Investment priorities differ across leading and lagging areas in Romania.................. 11 Figure 4. Key objectives and requirements of a sound project selection model ...................... 16 Figure 5. Key players in the implementation of ROP 2007-2013 (as of April 2013)................... 33 Figure 6. County road projects financed through the ROP 2007-2013 ................................... 41 Figure 7. County roads connecting to a growth pole within a 60-minute access area............... 42 Figure 8. County roads connecting to a county residence within a 40-minute access area........ 43 Figure 9. County and communal roads financed through PNDL 2014 .................................... 44 Figure 10. County Roads coordination btw. ROP and PNDL.................................................. 45 Figure 11. PNDL and PNDR complementarity of road projects ............................................. 48 Figure 12. PNDL and PNDR complementarity of water projects............................................ 48 Figure 13. PNDL and PNDR complementarity of wastewater projects ................................... 49 Figure 14. A proper M&E system with optimal feedback loops ............................................ 50 Figure 15. “Division of labor” between MRDPA and PNDL “Intermediate Bodies” (County Councils) ..................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 16. Scheme for Triage of Technical Documentation .................................................. 64 Figure 17. Typical timeline for a new PNDL project ............................................................ 68 Figure 18. Prioritization of investments in communal roads by locality ................................. 91 Figure 19. Prioritization of investments in health infrastructure by locality .......................... 103 Figure 20. Prioritization of investments in educational infrastructure by locality .................. 105 Figure 21. Prioritization of investments in cultural infrastructure by locality ........................ 107 Figure 22. Prioritization of investments in sports infrastructure by locality .......................... 109 Figure 23. The Territorial Development Index for 2011 ..................................................... 114 Figure 24. The Local Human Development Index for 2011 ................................................. 115 Figure 25. Proposed PNDL Monitoring Framework........................................................... 119 v List of Tables Table 1. Structure of the PNDL 2014 project portfolio by size*............................................. 20 Table 2. Sectoral split of PNDL portfolio 2013-2014 – based on the number and value of projects .................................................................................................................................. 22 Table 3. PNDL applications reviewed by Bank team (July-October 2014) ............................... 51 Table 4. Proposed PNDL Budget allocation for 2014-2020 (in mil. RON) ................................ 78 Table 5. How priorities are currently split under the PNDL .................................................. 79 Table 6. Proposed allocation of PNDL budget (in mil. Euro) - the Local Priorities Scenario (in mil. Euro)........................................................................................................................... 79 Table 7. EU funds allocation (in Euro) by operational program priorities ............................... 80 Table 8. Allocation of EU funds by PNDL project types ........................................................ 80 Table 9. Proposed allocation of PNDL budget (in mil. Euro) - the EU Priorities Scenario (in mil. Euro)........................................................................................................................... 81 Table 10. Estimated sector investment needs, by PNDL priority sector.................................. 82 Table 11. Proposed allocation of PNDL budget (in mil. Euro) - the Investment Need Priorities Scenario (in mil. Euro) ................................................................................................... 83 Table 12. Proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 budget by priorities .................. 83 Table 13. Proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 budget by priorities and by years (in mil. Euro) ................................................................................................................ 84 Table 14. Comparison of current distribution of the value of PNDL projects, .......................... 84 Table 15. Prioritization criteria for county roads at the county level ..................................... 85 Table 16. Prioritization criteria for county road projects ..................................................... 86 Table 17. Prioritization criteria for communal roads at the county level ................................ 88 Table 18. Prioritization criteria for communal road projects, by territorial administrative units (TAUs) ......................................................................................................................... 90 Table 19. Prioritization criteria for water infrastructure at the regional level ......................... 92 Table 20. Prioritization criteria for wastewater infrastructure at the regional level ................. 93 Table 21. Key requirements for the Urban Wastewater Directive ......................................... 95 Table 22. Prioritization criteria for water projects, by locality .............................................. 96 Table 23. Prioritization criteria for wastewater projects, by agglomerations .......................... 97 Table 24. Prioritization criteria for health infrastructure at the county level .......................... 98 Table 25. Prioritization criteria for education infrastructure at the county level ..................... 99 Table 26.Prioritization criteria for cultural infrastructure at the county level........................ 100 Table 27. Prioritization criteria for sports infrastructure at the county level......................... 101 Table 28. Prioritization criteria for health infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) .................................................................................................................. 102 Table 29. Prioritization criteria for educational infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) ............................................................................................. 103 Table 30. Prioritization criteria for cultural infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) .................................................................................................................. 106 Table 31. Prioritization criteria for sports infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) .................................................................................................................. 108 Table 32. Proposed allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 by county ....................................... 110 Table 33. Proposed PNDL General Process Indicators ....................................................... 112 vi Table 34. Proposed PNDL General Output Indicators........................................................ 113 Table 35. County Roads Performance Indicators.............................................................. 115 Table 36. Communal Roads Performance Indicators......................................................... 116 Table 37. Water Performance Indicators ........................................................................ 116 Table 38. Wastewater Performance Indicators ................................................................ 116 Table 39. Health Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 117 Table 40. Education Infrastructure ................................................................................ 117 Table 41. Cultural Infrastructure ................................................................................... 117 Table 42. Sports Infrastructure...................................................................................... 118 vii List of Acronyms CNADNR National Highways and National Roads Company DG RDI Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure EC European Commission EU European Union FSI Financial Sustainability Index GOR Government of Romania IDA Intercommunity Development Association LHDI Local Human Development Index LI OP Large Infrastructure Operational Programme MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration OP Operational Programme PNDI National Program for Infrastructure Development PNDL National Program for Local Development PNDR National Rural Development Programme PPP Public-Private Partnerships RDA Regional Development Agency ROC Regional Operating Water Company ROP Regional Operational Programme SDTR Territorial Deveopment Strategy of Romania SOP Sectoral Operational Programme TFE Technical and Financial Evaluation viii Executive Summary The first basic question this report should respond to is whether a program like the National Local Development Program (PNDL) should exist to begin with. The short and simple answer is: yes. Romania’s need for infrastructure investments at the local level is large and cannot be covered solely from EU funds and from local budgets. Moreover, when it joined the EU, Romania committed to reaching a number of goals (e.g., increasing the number of people with access to water supply and wastewater systems), which it cannot reach using only EU funds. More broadly, Romania should not rely exclusively on European grants for public investments – it should have its own state-budget-funded investment programs. Investment priorities and needs go beyond what may be defined in the Partnership Agreement with the EU, and adequate national budget funds should be allocated to cover those needs. However, the way public funds are managed through state-budget-funded programs has to improve dramatically along the entire cycle (i.e., from program design through evaluation, prioritization, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation). This report’s main aim is to propose a methodology for assessing state-budget-funded projects based on a rigorous selection model, including clear and effective prioritization criteria. This report first argues that project prioritization and selection should be optimized against four dimensions: absorption, impact, legitimacy, and capacity. Second, it provides a diagnostic of the National Program for Local Development (PNDL), managed by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA), as the most significant source of state-budget funding for local infrastructure projects. The PNDL’s current design and implementation leaves room for improvement, as reflected by the lack of strategic direction in allocating funds and the continued rise in the number of projects that get started without a feasible timeline for their completion. Further, this report makes recommendations for improvement of project evaluation and selection procedures for local infrastructure development projects, with a special focus on prioritization criteria and viable funding sources for each type of investment. The practical purpose is to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of proposed investments, maximizing impact in the context of inherently limited available financial resources. A complementary focus is on opportunities for harmonizing and better coordinating investments across various sources of funding, in the context of nearly EUR 40 billion available to Romania from the EU for the 2014-2020 programming period. A primary desideratum that a program like the PNDL should fulfill is to avoid duplication or crowding-out of alternative sources of funding, especially EU operational programmes. If a local authority determines that for a needed investment it can more easily access funds through a state-budget-funded program, there is a risk of leaving large EU grants unused. Obviously, EU funds come at much lower financial costs than national budget funds. Consequently, whenever a specific investment can be financed with such funds, it is the EU operational programmes that should be the first target for potential beneficiaries . It is thus critical that the PNDL be designed in tandem with EU operational programmes, and it should have a coordinated and harmonized approach with all investment programs in Romania. In fact, the PNDL should be ix seen as complementary funding mechanism to EU programmes, rather than a parallel/alternative funding source. Ideally, the PNDL would have as part of its mission statement the need to function as a complementary instrument, with matching funds for EU- funded programmes. Proposed steps for selecting PNDL investments Is the project recommended for financing? • Full pool of applications • Basic criteria applied for screening out projects that are not recommended for financing • Initial decision on whether a particular project proposal should move forward YES NO Could the project be financed from EU Funds? • Pool of “financeable” applications Project is not recommended for financing (neither EU, • If a project fits the eligibility criteria of particular EU nor PNDL funds) programs, it is recommended to pursue financing through those instruments YES NO Which EU program could Could the project be financed through the state-funded PNDL? finance the intervention? • Conformity (technical documentation fulfills GD 28/2008 requirements) For example: • Eligibility (project objectives/activities are aligned with PNDL requirements) • Roads that connect to TEN- T network  Regional YES NO Operational Programme Is the project a priority? What adjustments would be (further) • Water supply/sewage needed to the proposal to make it systems for localities • Prioritization criteria* developed • Selection model applied (e.g., “financeable” under the PNDL? between 2,000-10,000  National Rural scoring) • Conformity (e.g., permits, etc.) Development Programme • Eligibility (e.g., objectives, activities) *Note: Full prioritization model is • Technical aspects (e.g., omissions in presented in a separate chapter the design, etc.) A second desideratum for the PNDL is to ensure that the limited funds it has at its disposal go to the projects with the largest potential impact, chosen based on a rigorous selection model. Currently, PNDL funds are more or less allocated on an ad-hoc basis, without a clear view of where the biggest needs are. Moreover, the way the PNDL, and most State Budget funded programs are designed, does not allow for an efficient use of available funds. Some of the key policy measures can include the following:  Multi-annual implementation timeline. Currently, the PNDL is implemented on a year- to-year basis, although it is almost impossible to have even small projects go through a full project cycle (from pre-application to post-implementation) in a single year. In practice, this means that a project may receive funding one year and no funding the next. Partly because of this, most applicants have projects that have an average value three times smaller than that of similar EU-funded projects (e.g., from the Regional Operational Programme or the National Rural Development Programme). Moreover, without a clear deadline for implementation (i.e., a date by when committed funding would be “lost”), investment programs tend to never be really finished . For example, x a national program for the rehabilitation of national roads was started in 1994. By 2014 it managed to achieve only 20% of its initial targets.  Multi-annual budgeting. The simplest and most important instrument for proper prioritization of investments is a clear multi-annual budget. If a public authority knows it has only EUR 1 billion to use for needed infrastructure investments, it will also try to determine what investments it can finance with this budget and it will have a bigger incentive to channel available funds to the highest priority projects. Currently, the PNDL has contracted or committed to finance around 3,950 projects, with an estimated total value of RON 22 billion (roughly EUR 5 billion). Assuming that the budget it will have at its disposal is similar to the allocation received at the beginning of 2014 (i.e., around RON 1.5 billion), at least 15 years will be needed to finish all 3,950 projects . Obviously, this is neither an efficient, nor a realistic implementation timeline. It is also critical to take into consideration inter-annual linkages, as the budget execution in one year affects the planning for the next year. For example, the experience of EU-funded programs shows that a bulk of the budget is required towards the end of the planning period.  Specify and follow clear priorities. If a clear implementation timeline and budget are available, it is also important to determine the priorities that will be addressed within the set implementation timeline and the available budget. Currently, the PNDL primarily finances roads, water, and wastewater projects. This in itself is a step in the right direction because it provides a certain focus that is much needed for an investment program. However, there is no clear prioritization between these individual sectors – i.e., it is not clear which sector should receive a higher allocation. Rather, applications are currently received on an ongoing basis and, if they pass a number of basic eligibility/conformity checks, projects are deemed financeable. Consequently, there is an overrepresentation of projects that are easier to design and implement by beneficiaries – e.g., communal roads, which now represent 45% of the total value of PNDL projects. This lack of prioritization by sector basically makes the PNDL a de facto local budget supplement rather than a real investment program. Normally, if central government funds are made available to sub-national authorities, these funds should be directed towards investments that are deemed to be a national priority. For example, the need to meet ambitious EU targets in the water and wastewater sector, and the much higher needs for water and wastewater investments (EUR 30 billion) as opposed to communal roads investments (EUR 4.7 billion), could be a reason for allocating more PNDL funds for water and wastewater. In accordance with the issues mentioned above, a number of recommendations were made for the PNDL. Some of these include: 1. Follow the EU programming cycle. The first step to a harmonized and coordinated approach with EU-funded programs is to use the same planning timelines. This would create incentives for doing planning together before the start of the programming xi period; it would enable the elaboration of coordinated evaluation and selection criteria; it would create the premises for integrated development; and it would ensure efficient delivery within a similar timeframe. Consequently, the PNDL should now be designed for the 2014-2020 programming period and it should be harmonized and coordinated with the EU operational programmes, as well as with other state-budget-funded investment programs (e.g., the Environment Fund). 2. Establish multi-annual budgeting. Starting from the initial allocation for 2014 and assuming conservative economic growth and a modest inflation rate, the following 2014-2020 budget is proposed: Proposed PNDL Budget allocation for 2014-2020 (in million RON) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1,591 1,671 1,754 1,842 1,934 2,031 2,132 The total budget for the PNDL 2014-2020 thus comes together to a total of around RON 13 billion (roughly EUR 2.8 billion) – a sum that is manageable and can help cover a number of infrastructure gaps that EU funds will not address during the 2014-2020 programming period. 3. Define the priorities of the PNDL 2014-2020. The PNDL currently focuses on four major types of investments: county roads; communal roads; water and wastewater; and, social infrastructure. The main report discusses several scenarios on how the proposed PNDL 2014-2020 budget could be allocated by priorities, and the final proposal is included in the table below: Proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 budget by priorities and by years (in million EUR) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL Sub-programmes 353.6 371.3 389.9 409.4 429.8 451.3 473.9 2,879.2 County roads 53.0 55.7 58.5 61.4 64.5 67.7 71.1 431.9 Local/communal roads 88.4 92.8 97.5 102.3 107.5 112.8 118.5 719.8 Water and wastewater 176.8 185.7 194.9 204.7 214.9 225.7 236.9 1,439.6 Social infrastructure 35.4 37.1 39.0 40.9 43.0 45.1 47.4 287.9 4. Determine the PNDL 2014-2020 budget allocation for each county. This should be done according to actual needs rather than on an ad-hoc basis. County-level prioritization criteria for different types of investments (county roads, communal roads, water, wastewater, educational infrastructure, health infrastructure, cultural centers, and sports facilities) were elaborated to determine where infrastructure investment needs were highest. The map below sums up the proposed PNDL 2014-2020 budget allocation by counties. xii Proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 budget by counties (in million EUR) 5. Develop/refine prioritization criteria for PNDL projects. The PNDL does not have the staff, financing, or capacity to put a full evaluation and selection system in place, the way EU operational programmes have. It was therefore proposed to create prioritization criteria that could easily be applied upfront, allowing the staff of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, as well as the staff of county and local authorities, to determine the priority level for the projects they will receive. The priority lists will be done for specific types of investments, as follows: a. County Roads: Prioritization will be done at the county road level, with a list of priority projects for each county. b. Communal Roads: Prioritization will be done at the territorial administrative unit (TAU) level, including for each county a list of TAUs with the highest need for investments in communal roads. c. Water: Prioritization will be done in accordance with the regional water masterplans, with a focus on the localities with more than 50 people that are not covered or could be covered by an EU-funded program (e.g., Large Infrastructure Operational Programme 2014-2020 or the National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020). xiii d. Wastewater: Prioritization will be done in accordance with the regional water masterplans, with a focus on the agglomerations with more than 2,000 people equivalent that are not covered or could be covered by an EU-funded program (e.g., Large Infrastructure Operational Programme 2014-2020 or the National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020). e. Social Infrastructure: Prioritization will be done at the territorial administrative unit (TAU) level, including for each county a list of TAUs with the highest need for investments in: educational infrastructure; health infrastructure; cultural centers; sports facilities. 6. Monitor and evaluate the impact of PNDL. Project-specific performance indicators have been proposed as monitoring tools for the success of the PNDL. Moreover, the Territorial Development Index (TDI), developed by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, and the Local Human Development Index (LHDI), developed by Prof. Dumitru Sandu, were proposed as measures for determining whether funded infrastructure investments actually have a development impact. The Territorial Development Index for 2011 xiv The Local Human Development Index for 2011 The methodology for calculating the Local Human Development Index was modified for enabling a yearly calculation of the index and real-time monitoring. 7. Consider relying on County Councils as “intermediate bodies ” (IBs) for the PNDL. The same way Regional Development Agencies help take some of the work burden off the Managing Authority (MA) of the Regional Operational Programme, county councils can help with the management of the PNDL. The figure below shows how the workload could be split. To avoid subjective treatment of PNDL applicants by County Councils – as reported for the allocation of budget balancing transfers, in some cases – strict oversight from the MRDPA would still be required. As under the the ROP, the MRDPA, as the Managing Authority of the program, is fully responsible for how the implementation unfolds. That said, if clear and transparent selection and prioritization criteria are adopted, the room for potential misallocation of funds at the County Council/IB level would remain limited. xv “Division of labor” between MRDPA and PNDL “Intermediate Bodies” (County Council s) Strategic Tasks (high “competitive advantage” for MA) • Vision-setting • Coordination and integration • MA efforts are divided • Communication with IBs, Critical MA- between strategic roles level tasks beneficiaries and implementation- • Capacity building support (sharing focused actions of best practices, methodologies, • MA should focus on high- etc.) value-add, strategic tasks • Implementation-focused tasks should remain at IB Implementation-Focused Tasks (high “competitive advantage” for Critical IB-level IBs – such as County Councils) tasks • Procedural approvals based on (to full extent conformity checks possible) • Validation of notifications/addenda 9 Coordination with Component 1 of the RAS Program The prioritization criteria detailed in this report will be used for the elaboration of a full Project Selection Model under Component 1 of the RAS (Reimbursable Advisory Services) Program. One of the key issues the Component 1 will elaborate on, includes the finalization of priority lists for all sectors covered by PNDL, as follows: - County roads: a priority list of county roads; - Communal roads: a priority list of territorial administrative units (TAUs) that would most benefit from investment in communal roads; - Water Infrastructure: a priority list of localities (villages, communes, or towns) that would most benefit from investments in water infrastructure; - Wastewater Infrastructure: a priority list of localities (villages, communes, or towns) that would most benefit from investments in wastewater infrastructure; - Social Infrastructure: a priority list of TAUs that would most benefit from investments in social infrastructure. In the case of an investment program that would be about to start, these priorities lists could have been used to ensure the quick evaluation and selection of applications. However, in the case of the PNDL, there already seems to be an overcommtiment of funds. As the table below shows, for all the sectors, with the exception of Social Infrastructure, there is an over- commitment compared to the proposed 2014-2020 allocations. Basically, there are more projects in the pipe-line then (likely) available funding for finalizing these investments. This means in essence, that the priority lists that will be prepared for Component 1, will be used to identify the projects with the highest priority score from the existent PNDL project portfolio. Thus, rather than having individual calls for proposals or yearly applications (different project xvi application scenarios will be discussed in Component 1 of the RAS Program), the proposed selection process will first tackle the existing stock of projects, with small openings for social infrastructure investments (which are currently under-represented in the PNDL project portfolio). Comparison of current distribution of the value of PNDL projects, and the proposed allocation for the PNDL 2014-2020 (in mil. Euro) Value of Projects Proposed Difference Sub-programmes in PNDL 2014 Allocation for PNDL 2014-2020 County Roads 709.4 431.9 277.5 Communal Roads 2,231.9 719.8 1,512.1 Water and Wastewater 1,788.3 1,439.6 348.7 Social Infrastructure 24.5 287.9 -263.4 TOTAL 4,754.1 2,879.2 1,874.9 The following steps are envisaged: 1. The sector priority lists will provide scores for the main types of projects financed by the PNDL; 2. Preparing a list of projects that should be submitted for EU funding, or that should not be funded altogether. 3. The sector allocations by county will indicate how much funding is available per sector for each county. 4. The projects from the PNDL project portfolio with the highest score will be selected within the limit of the county sector allocation. The benefit of this approach is that it creates an incentive to propose PNDL projects for EU funding . Since only a limited number of projects from the PNDL project portfolio will be financeable, the MDRAP could encourage some applicants to submit their projects for EU funding, to allow more projects from their portfolio to receive funding. As the programmatic documents and the applicant guides for EU funded projects will be finalized, it will also become clearer how EU investments and State-budget investments could be coordinated and harmonized in a more efficient manner. It is critical to see the PNDL as a complementary funding mechanism to EU programmes, not as a parallel/alternative source of funding. xvii Introduction 1. In the context of Romania’s push toward sustainable and inclusive development, the Government has asked the World Bank to support the harmonization of public investments financed by the European Union and the state budget. This work is a follow- up to the World Bank’s Regional Development Program in Romania (November 2012 - March 2014) and aims to encourage synergies across public investments in local infrastructure, regardless of the funding source, and deliver stronger impact overall. Four components were agreed with the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) under the overall project focused on harmonizing local infrastructure projects:  Component 1 – Assistance with the coordination of strategies and plans for EU and state-funded investments in infrastructure;  Component 2 – Advisory services related to the existing portfolio of investment projects in MRDPA, including their optimal prioritization and preparation of potential EU-funded investments for the 2014-2020 programming period;  Component 3 – Assistance with improving the use of efficient designs and technologies in investments overseen by the MRDPA;  Component 4 – Assistance with the design of a Housing and Infrastructure Development Strategy. 2. The second aforementioned component (in italics ) focuses on the existing portfolio of investment projects financed by the MRDPA and further includes two sets of interrelated deliverables: a. Proposal of enhanced prioritization criteria for local infrastructure development projects, including clear performance and monitoring indicators, assessment of project implementation timelines, and guidelines on identifying viable financing sources per type of project ; b. Assessment of a sample of projects, at the level of technical-economic documentation (i.e., feasibility studies and/or detailed technical designs), to identify potential opportunities to leverage EU instruments and/or funds from the state budget. The current final report covers the former sub-component (in italics), making a set of specific proposals for policy measures on how to prioritize local infrastructure development projects in the three main sectors currently covered by MRDPA investments: roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure. While prioritization criteria are at the core of this work, it is important to recognize that they are only one element of a larger chain of actions required for the successful completion of local infrastructure projects – from concept design and project preparation to application, selection and prioritization, implementation, and post-implementation. As such, this report does not treat prioritization 1 in isolation from all other components, but rather as part of the larger whole. The next sub- section on the report’s objective and scope details this approach further. 3. This work is correlated with findings and recommendations from the broader current engagement with the MRDPA. In particular, the analysis of the strategic correlation of strategies, plans, and investment programs at different levels (component #1 described above) helps define a filter for selecting local interventions that contribute to higher-level plans and objectives. Moreover, recommendations from the work related to innovative and efficient designs and technologies (component #3 described above) will assist in the engagement of local authorities to improve technical proposals to ensure the adoption of optimal solutions. The team also expects to refine the set of prioritization criteria proposed in this report (under component 2) with the occasion of completing the intermediary and final reports on the strategy of prioritization of state-budget-funded projects (due on March 27 and August 27, 2015, respectively), which will include all available data and additional insights from multiple rounds of field interviews. 4. This report includes observations and recommendations based on research conducted from June through November 2014. The main sources of data and key documents reviewed include the following:  2013-2016 Governing Program, which defines the current cabinet’s priorities across and within key development sectors in Romania.  Legal framework for the PNDL’s implementation , including the text of the ordinance establishing the program, implementation norms, eligibility and selection criteria, and application templates. Other legislative provisions related to the implementation of EU and state-funded investment programs have been considered.  Programmatic documents and applicant guides corresponding to EU-funded instruments for 2007-2013 (e.g., the Regional Operational Programme - ROP, the Environment Operational Programme, National Rural Development Programme etc.) and for 2014-2020 (only in draft form as of November 1, 2014).  County-level master plans for water and wastewater , with a particular focus on proposed selection and prioritization criteria.  Regional Development Plans prepared for 2007-2013 (in final form) and for 2014- 2020 (in draft form) for each of Romania’s eight development regions.  Interviews with key stakeholders at the local, regional, and national level. For the current report, the team has interviewed key stakeholders in the MRDPA’s Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI), at both managerial and technical levels. Between September 8 and 26, the team also successfully completed one round of field interviews at the local level, covering three county councils (Cluj, Bistrița Năsăud, and Sălaj) and 6 communes in the three aforementioned counties. Over the next phases of the engagement, the team has planned multiple rounds of field interviews across the entire country. To this 2 end, it has provided the MRDPA a full list of potential locations and is waiting for the Ministry’s confirmation and support in finalizing the schedule (as of November 1, 2014). As more field data become available, recommendations included in this report will be updated through the future deliverables under component #1 described in the beginning of this introductory chapter.  Feasibility studies corresponding to projects in the PNDL’s pipeline. Preliminary observations are based on the results of a technical screening process of feasibility studies. It was carried out in July 2014 by a Bank team of five evaluators. The team focused on a sample of 159 feasibility studies for roads, water supply, wastewater systems, and social infrastructure, selected based on a pre-agreed methodology. 1  Database of projects to be financed under the 2014 PNDL , with a budget of close to RON 1 billion and spanning three types of basic infrastructure investments across the country: roads, water, and waste water.  Database of projects in the broader MRDPA portfolio (i.e., including interventions not covered by the 2014 PNDL). A sample of technical documentations to be analyzed as part of this work was selected for the other report prepared under this component, which builds on the current assessment of procedures and criteria and undertakes a deep dive into the MRDPA project portfolio.  Database of EU-funded infrastructure programs managed by the MRDPA, i.e., the ROP 2007-2013.  Draft database of public infrastructure projects managed by other Ministries, including the Ministry of Environment through OP Environment 2007-2013 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) through the National Rural Development Program (PNDR). This was provided in draft form by the MRDPA.  Data provided by the National Institute of Statistics.  Data provided by a variety of national and sub-national stakeholders.  Previous World Bank analyses. Specifically, this work draws on applicable insights that emerged from the World Bank’s 2011 Func tional Review of the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism – now the MRDPA – as well as from a series of reports produced under the 2012-2013 World Bank Regional Development Program, including “Competitive Cities: Reshaping the Economic Geography of Romania,” “Identification of Project Selection Models for the ROP 2014 -2020,” and “ROP 2.0.: MA-IB Collaboration and Support for Applicants and Beneficiaries of the ROP.” 1 See Annex 7 for a detailed description of the proposed guidelines on the selection of projects’ technical documentation to be screened as part of the current project. 3 Objective and Scope 5. This report aims to provide a methodology for assessing state-budget-funded projects – submitted for financing to the MRDPA – based on a set of clear and effective prioritization criteria. As noted earlier, the scope is broader than a simple proposal of new criteria, which cannot be treated in isolation from the other steps of an investment. As such, this work aims to improve the entire cycle involved in the MRDPA’s project portfolio assessment and strengthen the preparation and prioritization of investments for the 2014- 2020 programming period. To this end, this final report includes: (i) a theoretical framework for project prioritization and selection, optimized against four dimensions (absorption, impact, legitimacy, and capacity); (ii) a diagnostic of the National Program for Local Development (PNDL), managed by the MRDPA, as the most significant source of state-budget funding for local infrastructure projects; (iii) an overview of how EU-financed infrastructure programs select and prioritize projects, including monitoring and performance indicators; and (iv) recommendations for improvement of project evaluation and selection procedures for local infrastructure development projects, with a special focus on prioritization criteria and viable funding sources for each type of investment. The purpose is to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of proposed investments, maximizing impact in the context of inherently limited available financial resources. As reflected throughout the broader engagement (i.e., the four activities mentioned above), a key focus is on opportunities for harmonizing and better coordinating investments across various sources of funding, in the context of nearly EUR 40 billion available to Romania from the EU for the 2014-2020 programming period. 6. One of the key issues that this technical assistance tries to address is how to ensure that the existing technical documentation will eventually lead to completed, impactful projects. Based on lessons of previous programs, not all project proposals that have been developed by local authorities can/should actually be pursued. As such, a first step in the evaluation of existing documentation will require the triage of the projects that are financeable and those that are not. A second step should involve a determination of those projects that would be eligible for EU funding and should be directed to the respective decision making stream. As a matter of principle, whenever possible, EU funding should be sought, while state budget funds should be used only for activities that are not eligible for EU funding or for investments that are expected to complement or expand EU investments in areas that suffer from a funding gap. 7. Together with the report assessing the MRDPA portfolio of projects, this analysis also provides guidance on how to improve projects’ technical documentations in order to ensure a higher quality of applications for EU funds and for the PNDL. For example, in the current setting financing may be sought for a wastewater treatment plan that will service only one small locality, where it should ideally serve a cluster of localities. In the same vein, funding may be sought for the development of a communal road before the development of water or wastewater infrastructure along that road, which may result in the need to damage the road shortly after modernization in order to undertake water sector 4 investments. The proposals in this report try to facilitate as much as possible the integrated, coherent use of all sources of funding for local governments. 8. Another important area of focus for the current repo rt is to determine appropriate sources of funding for various project proposals, with the hope of turning projects in the MRDPA pipeline into EU-funded investments for 2014-2020. At this point in time, the PNDL management and staff, the county councils, and the local authorities applying for funding do not have clear institutional mechanisms to determine whether existing technical documentation is appropriate for seeking EU funding going forward. It may be desirable, but practically impossible to already elaborate formal evaluation criteria for PNDL that take into account whether proposed projects could receive funding from an EU-funded program for the 2014-2020 programming period. This approach may be developed only in the next stages of this assistance project, when final documentation pertaining to the upcoming set of structural instruments (e.g., programmatic documents, applicant guides, etc.) should become available upon formal approval by the EC. 9. Even so, it is ultimate responsibility of the Intermediate Bodies and the Managing Authorities for the respective Operational Programmes to determine whether a project is actually eligible or not. Formally, the MRDPA can only recommend that a specific applicant try to apply for EU funds rather than for PNDL if it determines that this course of action may be successful (i.e., if it would fit the key basic criteria for various EU funding sources available). This should limit the risk of situations when a solid application assessed by PNDL team as eligible for EU funding – and hence denied support via PNDL – is eventually not accepted by the Managing Authority of the respective OP. 10. There is also a need to identify projects that may likely receive EU financing or PNDL support, provided that beneficiaries of funding (i.e., local authorities) make some adjustments in the documentation. For some projects, the technical documentation may be incomplete or it may include outdated or irrelevant data/information. In this case, the applicant should be notified and further informed about how the technical documentation should be improved to make it eligible for financing. Through a similar notification, the PNDL team may inform an applicant if their project is eligible (in the opinion of the PNDL team) for funding from any of the EU Operational Programmes. The notification should also underline that applicants should consult directly with the Intermediate Bodies and the Managing Authority of these operational programmes and, if possible, provide references to the respective documents or contact details to such institutions in charge of EU funding. For the documentation submitted and eligible for PNDL funding only, it will be the PNDL team’s responsibility to provide clear feedback and instructions for improvement to limit the risk of requiring multiple rounds of clarifications or modifications. 11. With respect to its sectoral focus, this report covers infrastructure investments overseen by the MRDPA, primarily in: communal/county roads; water; wastewater; and social infrastructure. The scope is primarily centered on PNDL projects approved for 2014 – particularly with respect to the diagnostic of the status quo – given data made available through this stage of the engagement. The analysis focuses on projects that are still in the 5 preparation/planning phase, leaving aside those investments for which implementation on the ground has already begun, which involves legal commitments to winning bidders and a host of other requirements. As such, this work serves mainly as a tool for identifying, selecting, and prioritizing infrastructure investments in the MRDPA portfolio for 2014 and beyond. Audiences 12. The primary audience of the current report includes the staff of the Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI) within the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, which manages the PNDL. The report provides these key stakeholders with a first proposal of a methodology for screening, evaluating, selecting, and prioritizing projects submitted for t he DG RDI’s consideration. 13. Other stakeholders who may benefit from this assessment include:  At the national level: (a) ministries and agencies in charge of planning and implementing state-budget-funded interventions and (b) Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies of EU-funded operational programs, which may draw on recommendations for streamlining the evaluation of projects across EU and state-funded programs;  At the regional level: Regional Development Agencies, which are in charge of regional-level planning and coordination (through the Regional Development Plans developed for each programming period), and have also previously contracted technical evaluators for assessing projects submitted under the Regional Operational Programme;  At the county and local level: local communities and, more specifically, public authorities that prepare projects and submit applications to various EU and state-funded programs (including technical staff within local governments responsible for working with designers and other consultants).  Finally, for its part, the European Commission (EC) may leverage this study’s findings and replicate the recommendations in other Member States. Certainly, the issue of effective coordination and harmonization of evaluation procedures across EU and state-funded programs is relevant beyond the Romanian context. Report Structure 14. The observations and conclusions of this final report are grouped into the following chapters:  Chapter I: Context o This chapter provides a summary of infrastructure development needs in Romania and the challenges ahead for public authorities in Romania. 6 o In addition, the chapter provides an overview of a few key ingredients required for an effective project selection model: absorption, impact, legitimacy, and capacity. o Finally, the chapter offers discusses the need to customize project selection models and prioritization criteria based on project size and sector.  Chapter II: The National Program for Local Development (PNDL) o This chapter first describes the history, objectives, and legal framework of the PNDL, providing background information on the program. o Further, this chapter covers the main stages that a PNDL project goes through, from the pre-application phase through application, implementation, and post-implementation. o The final section summarizes the PNDL’s current framework and presents potential improvements for streamlining the PNDL’s management and operationalization, taking into account current constraints, particularly with respect to institutional capacity.  Chapter III: Good Practices of Project Selection for EU-Funded Programs o The chapter describes evaluation and selection procedures and criteria deployed for EU funds, highlighting good practices that may be replicated under state-budget-funded programs like the PNDL. o Select examples reviewed include: the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) – relevant axes (i.e., for roads and social infrastructure); OP Environment and county-level Master Plans (for water and wastewater); the National Rural Development Programme (for basic rural infrastructure); and the World Bank’s Romanian Social Development Fund (RSDF).  Chapter IV: Assessment and Policy Measures for the Overall PNDL Project Selection Model o The chapter makes recommendations regarding ways to improve specific steps in the PNDL application process, from the preparation of documentation through the submission of the application, its evaluation/ selection/prioritization, contracting, etc. In particular, a specific sub-section is dedicated to ways for improving feasibility studies submitted by applicants. This is based on a screening of a sample of feasibility studies considered for financing under the 2014 PNDL. o The chapter also includes a proposal for triage of projects proposed by sub- national authorities, for which technical documentation (i.e., feasibility studies/DALIs and/or detailed technical designs) has been already developed. The focus is on roads, water, and wastewater projects. Prioritization criteria will also be elaborated for social infrastructure projects, in a subsequent deliverable, as more inputs will be generated for 7 Component 4 of this technical assistance project (“ Support for defining a comprehensive strategy in the housing sector”).  Chapter V: Proposed Prioritization Criteria for Enhanced Selection of PNDL Projects o This chapter makes very specific proposals for how to allocate funds across counties and how to prioritize specific projects within counties/regions (i.e., at the locality level). o The sectors covered include: county and communal roads; water and wastewater; and social infrastructure (health, education, culture, and sports).  Chapter VI: Performance Monitoring System for the PNDL o This final chapter includes recommendations on proper monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems for the PNDL. o Specific focus is on clear performance indicators for each type of investment, as well as general impact indicators at the territorial administrative unit level. 8 Chapter I: Context Romania’s Local Infrastructure: Needs, Priorities, and Funding 15. Nearly twenty-five years after its democratic revolution, Romania continues to face important development challenges – from transport to education, health, environment, labor, agriculture, public administration , etc. This is not surprising for a country that went through a long and complex transition from communism and a centrally planned economy. For one, there is still no highway connection from Constanța, Romania’s eastern port on the Black Sea, to the Western border, which about 70% of exports cross. 2 Public utilities infrastructure is still deficient, as some areas of the country, particularly in the East and South, have fewer than half of the housing units connected to running water and sewage. Now Romania also faces the risk of EU infringement procedures and potential financial penalties, particularly in the water and sanitation sector, where it needs to hit clear targets and allocate significant funds over the coming years. The examples of persistent needs abound but, against this backdrop, recent progress particularly in large urban centers – with Bucharest surpassing cities like Madrid, Berlin, Rome, Lisbon, and Athens in terms of GDP per capita (PPP)3 – suggests that Romania has a high growth potential, provided that people have access to the right opportunities. Figure 1. Endowment with public services infrastructure (access to piped water) Data Source: National Institute of Statistics (2011). 2 See World Bank report “Competitive Cities” (2013). 3 Eurostat data for 2013. 9 Figure 2. Endowment with public services infrastructure (access to sewage) Data Source: National Institute of Statistics (2011) 16. As argued in th e World Bank’s 2013 Competitive Cities report, the key to unlocking Romania’s growth potential involves a range of interventions, targeted to the specific needs of leading and lagging areas.4 The first priority is improved connectivity and accessibility for people to take advantage of opportunities in Romania and abroad. Second, the government should nurture functioning institutions to ensure basic living standards for its citizens – essentially, the same start in life for all (i.e., drinking water, sewage, electricity, heating, good schooling, effective land and housing markets, affordable healthcare, etc.). Last but not least, targeted efforts for marginalized communities are required to address the specific factors that limit their mobility. By the same token, there are major negative consequences of the current situation, marked by slow progress and persistent needs: every day, people across Romania miss out on critical opportunities for personal and professional growth due to the lack of proper access to connective infrastructure and basic services. This further undermines the country’s potential to boost individual productivity and achieve sustainable and inclusive economic growth, slowing down progress toward achieving convergence with the EU. While knowing the right priorities is vital, a sine-qua- non condition for Romania’s successful development is having access to sufficient financial resources for supporting critical investments. 4 See Figure 3. 10 Figure 3. Investment priorities differ across leading and lagging areas in Romania Shorten the distance to large markets globally by improving infrastructure and International encouraging cross-border flows of people, capital, and ideas Intervention level Improve connections between leading and lagging areas within Romania to enable Regional efficient concentration of resources and spillover effects Improve connective Foster good institutions infrastructure between cities (basic services infrastructure, & surrounding areas Local education, health, land markets, etc.) Promote quality-of-life investments Design and implement targeted measures for marginalized groups Lagging Leading Area Area Level of economic development Source: Competitive Cities (World Bank, 2013). 17. Over the years, key stakeholders have channeled human and financial resources toward addressing key gaps in local infrastructure development to enable higher economic productivity and growth. At the local level, after 1990, county and city/town/commune-level authorities have been granted increasingly more authority over the provision of basic infrastructure services and the ownership of related assets. While more aware of local needs than the central government, few of these players (i.e., only some of the largest cities) have been able to generate sufficient own resources, enter PPP arrangements, attract private investment, or convince financial institutions to lend them the funds to fully finance the heavy costs involved in the upgrade, rehabilitation, and/or expansion of roads, water supply, and/or wastewater systems. In this context, the development of local infrastructure has depended on two main types of financing: internal (mainly the central government) and external (international partners, including the EU, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, etc.). 18. Internally, since the 1990s, the central government has launched numerous legislative acts and investment programs with 100% state-budget financing. These include: Government Decision (GD) 577/1997 for local and county roads, water supply, and wastewater systems; GD 530/2010 for “the rehabilitation and upgr ade of 10,000 11 kilometers of County and Local Roads”; Government Ordinance (GO) 7/2006 for sport infrastructure in rural areas, etc. Not all such programs appear to have been properly designed and implemented, as they have lacked clear strategic prioritization and coordination, adequate funding, and effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms. The MRDPA – previously, the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism (MRDT) – has spearheaded many such initiatives, attempting to improve the coordination of various interventions through common strategic planning and implementation. Beyond good intentions, however, Romania has not been able to significantly expand infrastructure development programs from its own sources because of limited availability of investment budgets, constrained opportunities to contract loans, and strict targets with respect to maintaining low annual deficits. 19. In this context, funds from external partners have played a critical role and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The largest source of financing comes from the European Union (EU), which allocated a further EUR 40 billion for the 2014-2020 programming period. A substantial part dedicated to local infrastructure development (particularly through the Regional Operational Programme, Large Infrastructure Operational Programme, and the National Program for Rural Development – PNDR). But past experience suggest that Romania faces significant constraints that have limited its capacity to absorb such funds, for a variety of reasons: incomplete alignment with EU legislation and best practices, particularly in the area of public procurement; lack of resources for co-financing and running costs of EU-funded projects; public authorities’ weak capacity to prepare, implement, monitor, and evaluate complex interventions; heavy bureaucracy and excessive audits, etc. 5 Even it was able to fully absorb substantial EU structural funds and take advantage of other forms of international assistance, Romania would still face critical infrastructure needs far exceeding available funding. 20. Moreover, EU funds cannot possibly address Romania’s entire need for basic infrastructure. For example, in 2012, 34,000 km of county and communal roads were made of dirt or gravel and required modernization, at a cost of around EUR 8.1 billion. An additional 21,000 km of county and communal roads only had only surface treatment and may require rehabilitation. As a point of comparison, only EUR 0.87 billion were allocated for the modernization/rehabilitation /extension of county and urban roads under the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013. Furthermore, by 2015 and 2018, around EUR 19 billion need to be invested in the water and wastewater infrastructure respectively, just to fulfill EU requirements – i.e., increase the share of Romanians with access to such infrastructure to 70% (from 52% in 2004). However, only around EUR 3.3 billion were allocated for such investments under the SOP Environment 2007-2013. 5For a more complete review of challenges faced by beneficiaries of EU funds, see “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication and Beneficiary Support for the Regional Operational Programme, 2014-2020,” World Bank, 2013 . 12 The Imperative of Harmonized Investments 21. In this context, Romania has the opportunity to integrate, harmonize, and mutually reinforce investments in local infrastructure, across all sources of funding – particularly EU programs and state-budget-funded efforts led by the MRDPA. With careful planning, programs financed by the central government can complement EU assistance, as in the case of communities that may not eligible for EU financing for particular projects. Moreover, an effective coordination across EU and state-funded investments can leverage substantial synergies and help Romania close the infrastructure gap faster. 22. By contrast, a multitude of uncoordinated funding sources can lead to duplication, inefficiencies, and lower appetite for EU funds. Some of these negative side- effects became obvious after the launch of the now-closed National Program for Infrastructure Development (PNDI), a past initiative of the former Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism. The 2011 World Bank Functional Review of Romania’s regional development sector recommended that programs funded 100% from the state budget “[should] avoid duplication with EU-supported [interventions].” 6 23. The PNDI was a EUR 4 billion program fully funded by the GOR, which could have effectively crowded out EU-funded structural instruments like the ROP, OP Environment, and the National Rural Development Programme (PNDR). For one, the PNDI targeted similar types of infrastructure investments (e.g., county roads, water and sewage networks, health and education infrastructure etc.). Second, it lacked rigorous and transparent selection processes, and staff in the then MRDT became quickly overwhelmed with requests and technical documentations (e.g., prefeasibility and feasibility studies, detailed technical designs, etc.) submitted by public beneficiaries from across the country. There was no system for the independent assessment of projects (unlike the requirement to have external evaluators of EU-funded projects) and a programming document defining eligibility and selection criteria was completely lacking (unlike the extensive programming documents corresponding to EU-funds, which are prepared by different OPs and approved by the European Commission). 24. In the absence of clear selection criteria and prioritization measures, the PNDI project portfolio expanded quickly. Two key insights are worth highlighting: (a) the demand for infrastructure investments far exceeds available funds; and (b) beneficiaries much preferred to apply for funds under the PNDI, avoiding the lengthier procedures involved in accessing EU funds. Anecdotal evidence suggests that not only applications were easier under the PNDI, but also the implementation phase came with less rigorous monitoring and controls. The direct consequence was that state-budget funds – in the case of PNDI, in the form of long-term liabilities of the central government to commercial banks 6 “Functional Review of Regional Development and Tourism,” World Bank, 2011, p. xvi . 13 and developers – crowded out EU grants, which were cheaper by all measures, yet harder to access. In the meantime, the change in government in 2012 brought the PNDI to an end, but this is just one example of how state-budget investment programs have typically operated in Romania. 25. An additional key shortcoming of previous programs financed from different sources is that they have lacked strategic correlation. At the level of local authorities, development strategies and plans are often geared toward specific funding opportunities, without considering actual needs on the ground in an integrated manner (e.g., most cities produced integrated urban development plans as a requirement for accessing ROP funds, failing to address broader development challenges). At the central level, as the World Bank 2010 and 2011 Functional Reviews showed, communication and coordination across different ministries is deficient, leading to disjointed interventions (e.g., paving the road, then digging to upgrade the water and sewage networks) and failing to leverage potential synergies (e.g., financing back-to-back roads or “linking” two EU -funded water projects with a state-budget-funded extension). The Task at Hand: Current Challenges and Opportunities 26. In April 2013, the MRDPA launched the National Program for Local Development (PNDL) through Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) 28/2013. This was meant to bring multiple disparate investment efforts under the same program, precisely to ensure improved planning coordination. The PNDL focuses primarily on roads, water, and sewage projects, but other types of investments (e.g., educational infrastructure, healthcare facilities, cultural sites, sports centers, etc.) can also be eligible to receive financing. The next chapter provides an in-depth description of PNDL’s history, objectives, sub-programs and intervention areas, and implementation norms. 27. At a practical level, the MRDPA and local/county authorities now have thousands of projects in their portfolio, at the stage of feasibility study or detailed technical design, or even in various phases of implementation. Most of these investments are stopped or advancing very slowly. The main reason is lack of funding through state-funded programs. As a solution, the government would like to incentivize local governments to reintegrate some of these projects into the project cycles of EU-funded activities. Through proper evaluation, selection, and prioritization, these projects can ensure a solid pipeline for the 2014-2020 programming period and, upon completion, generate substantial impact at the local, regional, and national level. There are therefore two main challenges facing the MRDPA and particularly the Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI), which is directly in charge of implementing the PNDL and other state-budget-funded programs:  Optimal prioritization, sequencing and selection of projects to be financed, both from the portfolio of existing applications and from new ones submitted for consideration; and 14  Correlation of public investments overseen by DG RDI with EU and other state- funded interventions for the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods. 28. While the history and evolving causes for the current challenges may be complex, the overall message is simple: Romania continues to face great development needs and limited financial resources. This makes value for money a principle of paramount importance for all its public investments. Put differently, the GOR should pursue an agenda focused on maximizing impact for the given funding available for investment programs, whether from the EU or from the state budget. 29. In this endeavor, it is critical to ensure that investment funding is allocated and prioritized based on clear, fair, and effective criteria that take into account the specific characteristics and needs of leading and lagging areas. Such principles and procedures are generally upheld in the disbursement of EU funds, including through the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) managed by the MRDPA. 7 There is an opportunity to adopt good practices from EU structural instruments to state-budget programs like the PNDL, which would ensure an improved correlation and coordination of interventions across sources of funding, delivering stronger synergies and development impact. Optimal Project Selection: Disbursement, Impact, Legitimacy, and Capacity 30. First and foremost, what are the main objectives and requirements of an o ptimal project selection model? At a basic level, a model for selecting investments should maximize value for money (i.e., most impact for least cost). In reality, however, the picture is more complex. The framework presented below is based on the World Ba nk’s 2014 report on “Identification of Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020.” Still, the same principles apply to any investment program, regardless of the source of financing (state budget or EU funds). 31. An optimal project selection model has four core objectives (disbursement, impact, legitimacy , and feasibility ) and six corresponding requirements (efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, fairness, transparency, and capacity) . The following sections assess each of them, though it is important to recognize that they are all ultimately interrelated. An investment program may also have to make deliberate trade-offs between them: for example, it could be highly efficient and spend the funds rapidly, but focus solely on low- impact interventions; or it may be able to select only the proposals with the highest expected impact through a complex mechanism, but may lack transparency (and, hence, legitimacy) or may exceed the management system’s capacity with numerous procedures, leading to delays and even blockages. In short, all four goals are important, though not all may be achievable at the same time. 7 See World Bank’s 2014 report on “ROP Project Selection Models” . 15 Figure 4. Key objectives and requirements of a sound project selection model Disbursement (efficiency) 32. First, an optimal selection model needs to ensure that the budget allocated for a particular program is spent efficiently – i.e., “disbursed ” – in a given time horizon. For EU- funded interventions in Romania, this is usually 9-10 years. 8 In the case of the PNDL or of many state funded activities, the money is allocated annually, per Romania’s current practice of single-year budgets. Disbursement is a concern particularly in the case of highly cumbersome procedures in the pre-application/application phases, which would therefore slow down the entire process and leave insufficient time for the project’s implementation and to receive reimbursements of eligible expenses. Impact (effectiveness) 33. Equally important, given the inherently limited nature of the fundin g available, an optimal selection model should distinguish between more and less impactful interventions, prioritizing the former for higher effectiveness. This is easier said than done, as there is no single definition of a project’s impact . Several types are worth considering: financial/economic impact (as measured by a cost-benefit analysis, net present value or internal rate of return calculations, etc.); social impact (i.e., impact on 8 The exact timeline depends on which rule applies (i.e., n+2 or n+3, where n is equal to 7). 16 poor and/or marginalized communities); and environmental impact (e.g., changes in greenhouse gas emissions, reduction in non-recyclable waste, etc.). Additionally, a project may generate direct impact (the immediate result of completing the intervention, e.g., faster travel times on a newly modernized road); indirect impact (a positive or negative effect on a related sector, such as the development of a residential neighborhood close to a rehabilitated road); and induced impact a positive or negative effect on a non-related sector (e.g., a new road sparks economic activity in a region, generating more jobs and higher disposable income for residents, who consume more and thus further contribute to growing the local economy). (Later in the report we discuss the opportunity of using composite indexes for measuring impact – in particular, the Territorial Development Index and the Local Human Development Index.) Legitimacy (clarity, fairness, and transparency) 34. In addition to absorption and impact, an optimal project selection model should be legitimate for all stakeholders involved – particularly for applicants and beneficiaries – through clear, fair, and transparent rules and procedures. Clear application requirements and selection/prioritization criteria help set the right expectations and reduce room for interpretation. Fairness depends on applying the same standards to similar proposals and only deciding based on the formal criteria that are noted in the funding facility’s regulations. Along the same lines, the full application, evaluation, and selection mechanism should be described in transparent terms. This will boost applicants’ confidence in the proceedings and also strengthen the accountability of technical evaluators and other stakeholders who may intervene during the project cycle. Capacity (feasibility) 35. Finally, a project selection model may optimize for absorption, impact, and legitimacy, but it will be of little practical use if it does not also account for feasibility given the system’s capacity constraints. In general, the more complex a framework, the more resources (staff numbers, staff knowledge, time, and money) it requires to run smoothly and flawlessly. Of course, there are hard constraints (e.g., a fixed budget dedicated to the program’s management each year) and softer ones (e.g., internal staff may be limited, but additional external evaluators may be hired if there are sufficient financial resources available). Customized Selection Models: Project Size and Sector 36. In addition to the four core dimensions described above, project selection models should take into account the size and sector or proposed interventions. Put differently, the exact formulas for optimizing for absorption, impact, legitimacy, and capacity differ across small and large investments, as do the prioritization criteria for selecting roa ds vs. water/wastewater systems vs. schools vs. hospitals, etc. There is no ideal one-type-fits-all selection model that can be applied without proper consideration of project size and sector. 17 Project size 37. First of all, why does project size matter for choosing one selection model over another? For one, project size can be a good proxy for potential impact – larger projects will typically generate a higher impact than small-scale investments, though there are certainly exceptions to this rule. This suggests that for more costly proposed projects, the applicable evaluation system should be more sophisticated and thorough. In the World Bank’s previous report on the Regional Operational Programme’s Project Selection Models, the recommendation is to: (i) “pre -select” large projects based on local/regional/ national strategies and more complex impact assessment methods (including, where possible, cost- benefit analyses); (ii) select medium-size projects competitively, based on a comparative set of evaluation criteria applied to similar types of investments; and (iii) award small projects, which tend to have limited impact, based on the first-in-first-out (FIFO) rule. 9 38. In recognition of the principles described above, the Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) 88/2013 from September 20, 2013 established a new set of prioritization criteria for large projects only, based on the following classification: (a) large – the total project cost is higher than RON 100 million; (b) medium – the total project cost is between RON 30 and RON 100 million; (c) small – the total project cost is below RON 30 million. 39. The following stages must be followed in the implementation of a large investment project (i.e., over RON 100 million or roughly EUR 22.5 million): a) Stage 1 – Project identification: The idea is transposed into a conceptual note capable of offering information in a rigorous manner. During this phase, the pre- feasibility study is completed, as a tool that guides the decision-making process with respect to the best solution to address a need or issue faced by the beneficiaries of a proposed investment project. b) Stage 2 – Feasibility study: At least three options are explored and the most viable alternative from a technical, economic, and social perspective is then analyzed in detail. In this phase, the main credit release authority (i.e., the potential beneficiary of the funding, such as a Local or County Council) develops the complete project design and the studies meant to determine the project size, the environmental impact assessment, etc. In order for a project to pass to the following stages, the feasibility study must be approved by the credit release authority according to current legal provisions. c) Stage 3 – Selection and budgeting: The selection stage takes place when a certain new project is considered to have fulfilled all requirements related to its degree of preparation. The budgeting stage, including the detailed technical design, defines 9 For a more in-depth explanation, see “I dentification of Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020,” World Bank, 2014. 18 when a new project will be included in the budget of the following year and when the resources are allocated in order to continue the implementation of the project in the following years, as per the fiscal and budgetary strategy. The fact that a project is “selected” does not necessarily mean that it will be “budgeted , ” because it is possible that in a certain year the government does not have the financial capacity necessary to finance all the projects deemed to be “ ready. ” By law however, it is allowed to elaborate the technical design if appropriate funds have been allocated for the project. d) Stage 4 – Project implementation / execution: The project that received a reasonable budgetary allocation allowing it to be completed within the anticipated timeframe begins to be implemented. The projects for which the budgetary allocations are minor in comparison to their total cost and have a timeframe for completion that exceeds the initial estimate are deemed to be in stand-by or in a minimum execution stage. e) Stage 5 – Completion, operation, and maintenance of the objective: This phase begins once the “reception” and start-up stages of the project are complete, and the project is ready to operate. In this stage, the delivery of the services can start. The beneficiary of the investment (i.e., a Local or County Council) will monitor the delivery of services to make sure that the new assets reach their goal during their usage period. The quantity and quality of the services offered, as well as the operation of the objective, will be monitored over time. f) Stage 6 – Ex-post project assessment: The purpose of this phase is to measure, assess, explain, and disseminate the real results of an investment project based on practical measurements and cost-efficiency analyses. 40. For medium and large projects, as defined by GEO 88/2013, the following prioritization principles must be followed (the actual criteria are provided in Annex 1):  Principle 1: Appropriateness of the Project in the Policy Context [20 points]  Principle 2: Economic and Social Justification [40 points for new projects/30 points for continuing existing investments]  Principle 3: Affordability and Financial Sustainability [20 points]  Principle 4: Implementation Arrangements/Implementation Performance [20 points for new projects/30 points for continuing existing investments] 41. While these principles aim to ensure optimal allocation of public resources and the maximization of value for money in public spending, they do not formally cover small projects. Indeed, the question remains: what should be done to select and prioritize small projects for which adopting the full project cycle and evaluation procedures, as defined by GEO 88/2013, would be excessive? In a few words, the answer is the following: the applicable procedures should be proportional to the cost and complexity of each project. 42. The PNDL, as the main state-budget-funded program managed by the MRDPA finances primarily small and lower-middle-sized investments. Following the methodology 19 used in the “Project Selection Models” report and using the Ministry of Finance’s definition for large projects, PNDL projects were sub-divided in the following categories: large projects (more than RON 100 million); upper-middle-sized projects (RON 30 – 100 million); small/lower-middle-sized projects (RON 1.5 – 30 million); and very small projects (less than RON 1.5 million). Very small projects (less than RON 1.5 million) constitute 2.5% of the PNDL portfolio, while small/lower-middle sized projects represent the bulk of projects, with an average value of around RON 6 million (~EUR 1.4 million). Both very small and lower- middle sized projects fall under the category of “small projects” according to the GEO 88/2013, i.e., they are under the threshold of RON 30 million. Table 1. Structure of the PNDL 2014 project portfolio by size* Number of Average Total value % of total projects value of of projects contracted project (in (in RON) projects RON) Small Projects (<1.5 mln RON) 494 875,000 0.43 bln 2.5% Medium-Sized Projects (1.5 - 100 mln RON) 2,533 6,460,000 16.4 bln 94% Lower-middle-sized projects (1.5 – 30 mln RON) 2,501 6,000,000 15 bln 86% Upper-middle-sized projects (30 – 100 mln RON) 32 44,000,000 1.4bln 8% Large Projects (>100 mln RON) 4 133,000,000 0.53 bln 3.5% TOTAL 3.031 5,700,000 17.4 bln 100% Data Source: PNDL Database of Projects (MRDPA, 2014). *Note: Only those projects were considered for which a project value was available. The total number of projects under consideration by PNDL now is 3,952 . 43. This suggests that PNDL proposals should be evaluated and prioritized against simpler, more straightforward selection criteria compared to the framework proposed by GEO 88/2013, which in any case is not applicable for investments under RON 30 million. Criteria for the PNDL should take project impact into account, without attempting highly precise estimates of direct/indirect/induced effects or requiring elaborate cost-benefit analyses. For efficiency purposes, there should be a selection process able to go through a large number of small-sized projects (as opposed to large projects for which the important factor is to thoroughly assess each individually or in comparison to other large projects, as part of a strategic decision-making process). Project sector 44. First of all, on the topic of deciding priorities across sectors (e.g., whether to invest more in roads than in water/wastewater), there are multiple options for coming to an “optimal” allocation (Chapter V discusses a number of scenarios in more detail) . One theoretical option is to finance what each jurisdiction proposes, in any sector of choice (e.g., from public parks to roads and business centers). The idea of investment programs, however, is that some investments add more value than others; for example, a road connecting a remote commune to a neighboring city is typically a lot more useful than a 20 business & IT center that would lack both interested investors and the required human capital. Keeping in mind the need for coordinated actions that deliver high development impact, both EU instruments and state-budget-funded programs define a limited set of eligible interventions, in line with key national/regional priorities, as defined in documents such as the Europe 2020 strategy, the Governing Program, the National Sustainable Development Strategy, etc. The reports corresponding to component (1) under the current engagement of the Bank with the MRDPA address precisely the topic of harmonizing strategies and plans for a coordinated prioritization of interventions at the national, regional, and local level. 45. Identifying the concrete needs in individual sectors also can help identify where resources should be allocated. Especially if State Budget programs are designed to complement EU funded programs, it is important to know where the needs are highest. If investment needs are particularly high in one sector, but less high in another sector, a larger allocation should go for the sector with the higher needs. 46. If a sector-by-sector needs analysis is not available, every new cabinet in Romania is required to present in front of Parliament (and the general public) an overarching policy document that describes its priorities in each sector and across sectors. Interestingly, the Governing Program 2013-2016 (still valid as of November 2014, ahead of the election of a new President) argues that there has been a chronic shortage of financing of services offered by local authorities and a lack of public investment prioritization, with clear financing criteria, which has led to ever-larger discrepancies between various areas in Roma nia. Under action items for Romania’s development, the Government Program emphasizes the need to continue and finish infrastructure projects that have been started in the past, based on clear priorities and consultations with beneficiaries. The same document also prefaces the National Program for Local Development (PNDL), calling for “financing a minimum package of required public investments,” which include water and sanitation systems, along with roads and various types of social infrastructure. 47. While the Governing Program does not provide specifics (e.g., a certain percentage for each type of supported investments), the reference to the “minimum package” implies that none of the basic infrastructure investments should be neglected. Indeed, in practice, the way funding was allocated for the PNDL in 2014 appears to support the hypothesis that basic infrastructure needs (transport, water, and sanitation) receive comparable levels of attention from the government. More specifically, the total number of projects considered for the 2014 financial exercise is 3,952: roughly 52% are roads and 35% are water/wastewater investments. The number of social infrastructure investments financed in 2014 through the PNDL is small. The table below provides more details of sector composition of projects in the portfolio. Of these 3,952 projects, 2,530 were new projects, while 1,422 were projects that were started in previous years and received PNDL financing for 2014. Of the 1,422 started projects, 1,188 had a completion rate of less than 1% - i.e. they could technically be considered new projects. Less than 150 projects had a completion rate of 60%. 21 Table 2. Sectoral split of PNDL portfolio 2013-2014 – based on the number and value of projects Type Number of Average value of Total value of % of total contracted projects project (in RON) projects (in RON) projects (estimated) County Roads 192 16,265,000 3.1 bln 14% Communal Roads 1,846 5,320,000 9.8 bln 45% Water 859 4,200,000 3.6 bln 16% Wastewater 526 8,100,000 4.2 bln 19% Education 191 1,575,000 0.3 bln Health 16 1,480,000 0.023 bln Bridges 173 2,930,000 0.57 bln Cultural 40 2,840,000 0.11 bln 6% Tourism 19 2,330,000 0.044 bln Sports 33 1,100,000 0.036 bln City Halls 57 2,800,000 0.16 bln TOTAL 3,952 5,575,000 22 bln 100% Data Source: PNDL Database of Projects (MRDPA, 2014). 22 Chapter II: The National Program for Local Development (PNDL) 48. The Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) 28/2013 legally established the National Program for Local Development. Along with its formal justification (“notă de fundamentare”) and the Methodological Norms for its application (Ministry Order 1851/2013), this act sets the PNDL’s design and implementation framework. At the time, the PNDL was an important expression of the new cabinet’s commitment to the development of local infrastructure, as reflected in the 2013-2016 Governing Program (as approved by Parliament through decision 45/2012). For example, one of the key objectives for Romania’s regional development is defined as the financing of a basic package of services for rural areas, including roads, drinking water, sanitation, social infrastructure etc., “for achieving [at least] minimum standards of living.” 10 The same document further emphasizes the need to prioritize public infrast ructure projects to contribute to Romania’s sustainable, balanced development. 11 49. The GEO 28/2013 defines three sub-programs as components of the PNDL: the modernization of Romanian villages; the urban regeneration of municipalities and towns; and the development of county-level infrastructure. Eligible beneficiaries vary across sub- programs: while the first one targets communes (rural localities), the second one is aimed at cities and the latter at counties. GEO 30/2014 and MRDPA Ministry Order 919/2014 included Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) among the list of eligible beneficiaries for PNDL funding. Article 7 in the GEO describes the list of intervention areas (similar to “axes” of EU-funded programs):  Water supply systems and drinking water treatment plant;  Sewage systems (networks) and wastewater treatment plant;  Education units (kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, high schools, etc.);  Healthcare units in rural areas (clinics, pharmacies, etc.);  Public roads (i.e., county roads, local interest roads, commune roads and/or public roads within localities);  Bridges, culverts, and/or footbridges;  Local cultural facilities, such as libraries, museums, multi-functional cultural centers, and theaters;  Landfills;  Public, commercial markets, fairs, cattle fairs, as applicable;  Sports facilities; and  Headquarters of local public authorities and other subordinated public institutions. 12 10 See 2013-2016 Governing Program, Chapter 10 on “Development and Administration”. 11 Ibid. 12 The last category (i.e., headquarters of public institutions) was introduced through GEO 30/2014. 23 The types of eligible works include construction of new infrastructure, as well as extension, rehabilitation, and upgrading of existing infrastructure. Essentially, through such broad conditions, the PNDL is able to cover the MRDPA’s entire vast portfolio of projects – both previously-financed interventions (at various stages of completion) and brand new investments, by all types of local public beneficiaries (from local councils in communes and cities to county councils). 50. In addition to the overall objective of supporting Romania’s regional development, the PNDL has sought to integrate three investment programs that had operated independently in the past:  The infrastructure program based on Government Decision (GD) 577/1997 targeted the modernization of communal roads and connecting villages to water supply, sanitation systems, and electric and phone networks. Before its integration under PNDL, this program was managed by the MRDPA (formerly the MRDT) through the Public Works Directorate. County councils played a main role by centralizing funding requests from all potential beneficiaries in the county and communicating them to the MRDPA.  The Rural Infrastructure Development Program, based on Government Ordinance (GO) 7/2006, also aimed at the “development and modernization of Romania’s rural areas, […] by connecting them to roads and water and wastewater networks.”13 In its initial form, this program was managed by a Commission, presided by the Prime Minister and bringing together representatives of 6 ministries, the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, and the Association of Romanian Communes. The Ministry of Transport was responsible for monitoring the program’s implementation.  Multiannual Priority Programs for Water and the Environment, based on GO 40/2006, defined specific intervention sectors in certain geographical areas (for example, “water and wastewater infrastructure for the Criș river basin, Vaslui County, and the municipality of Ploiești”). 14 Other projects targeted varied interventions, from increasing the safety of river dams to developing an integrated IT system for the environment sector and the sustainable development of the Danube Delta biosphere. Moreover, GEO 28/2013 establishing the PNDL also dismantled the Program for the Rehabilitation and Upgrade of 10,000km of County and Local Roads.” The reason mentioned by the formal justification note is that the program had not received funding and thus had not financed any investment projects since its establishment in 2010. 13 See Article 3 of GO 7/2006 14 See Article 2, letter (c) of GO 40/2006 24 51. In essence, the PNDL brought under the same management and strategic direction three different investment programs that had had similar objectives. As noted by the government, this change was intended “to enable a more efficient use of public funds through an integrated implementation of infrastructure development programs in rural and urban areas.” 15 Indeed, it makes sense that central government programs with the same target intervention areas would be merged under a single design and implementation unit – i.e., the MRDPA. As emphasized publicly by the MRDPA, the PNDL was never meant as a successor to the now-closed PNDI, which was based on a financing scheme whereby contractors would finance the cost of the project and get reimbursed upon completion. Still, PNDL norms make it possible that other projects previously started receive financing to finish the required works, provided that such investments are aligned with PNDL priorities and eligibility rules. 52. On the downside, the legal framework, including the PNDL implementation norms, lacks clear references to potential synergies and coordination with other funds. The program fails to draw lines that would avoid duplication and crowding out of EU- funded instruments, which come at much lower cost for the Romanian government. As the next sub-section shows, the PNDL is based on a relatively broad set of norms. On the one hand, this allows for increased flexibility in financing projects. On the other hand, there may be room for more specificity and rigor in the evaluation and selection of projects to increase the transparency, objectivity, and potential impact of the program. These arguments are further described in the following sections, which cover the key steps involved in the PNDL’s implementation. Allocation of PNDL Funds to Counties 53. Based on the budget allocation among ministries, as agreed at the government level and approved by Parliament, th e MRDPA establishes the PNDL’s total annual budget. Next, the MRDPA allocates sums for each county, sub-program, and specific areas of intervention, based on a Ministerial Order. The criteria for allocating sums across counties are described in Annex 2 to the PNDL Methodological Norms. 16 In short, the three main types of criteria that shape the allocation of PNDL funds from the national t o the county level are based on ongoing (unfinished) projects (number and funding needs), demographic data (county population and surface area), and financial capacity. 54. While the PNDL norms include sensible indicators to decide on the funding allocation for each county, the methodology shows room for improvement. For one, the law is not clear which of the three main criteria are factored into the funding allocation, merely noting that “at least one of [them] should be considered.” 17 Second, there are no 15 See the formal justification note to GEO 28/2013. 16 See Box 1. 17 Methodological Norms for applying GEO 28/2013, MRDPA Minister Order 1851 /2013. 25 defined weights for individual criteria or for sub-criteria within the main categories (e.g., number of ongoing projects vs. their funding needs). Third, it is unclear how certain indicators would be measured in practice, particularly the administrative-territorial units’ capacity to co-finance investment projects. One proxy that could be used would be non- earmarked revenues as a share of total revenues, 18 in the absence of clear commitments (e.g., local/county council decisions to co-finance particular investments). Finally, other potentially relevant indicators are missing. For example, the PNDL does not seem to take into account a county’s development level, measured as GDP per capita (as used for the Regional Operational Programme in deciding the split across Romania’s eight planning regions). 55. It is worth highlighting that final decisions regarding the PNDL’s allocation of funding belong entirely to the MRDPA. In this process, it is presumed that the Ministry makes use of county-level data, provided either directly by county/local authorities or by other central bodies (e.g., the Ministry of Finance). Once it makes a decision on the anticipated funding allocation, the MRDPA communicates it to county councils. Based on these expectations, county councils further interact with local authorities to begin making a list of investments that may be financed through the PNDL. Based on data available at this point, it is unclear whether at this stage the MRDPA decides only on the funding allocation per county or goes beyond that. Article 8 of GEO 28/2013 implies the latter: specifically, “the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration shall prepare and approve by order of the Minister of Regional Development and Public Administration the distribution of the amounts intended to the Program, per counties, per each sub-program, and per specific areas of intervention.” 19 It is equally unclear if the MRDPA pre-selects investment projects to be included in the PNDL, as implied by Article 9 (3), as opposed to putting together the list of investments based on inputs from local and county authorities, as implied by Article 9 (4) and by the Methodological Norms. 18 For a detailed explanation of this methodology, see the 2014 World Bank report on “Identification of Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014 -2020”. 19 See GEO 28/2013. 26 Box 1. Allocation criteria for the PNDL budget “For the balanced distribution of fu nds to counties, at least one of the following indicators should be considered: (1) Weight of number of ongoing investment projects for each county, based on:  The number of ongoing investment projects for each county as a share of total ongoing investments at the national level;  The funding needs for completing the investment projects started and not completed as a share of the total funding needs for completing the investment projects started and not completed at national level. (2) Demographic and administrative-territorial data of counties, considering:  The weight of the number of administrative-territorial units in the county as a share of the total number of administrative-territorial units at the national level;  The weight of the county population as a percentage of the total population of the country;  The weight of the county area as a percentage of the total area of the country. (3) Administrative-territorial units’ financial capacity, considering the share of units’ capacity to participate with funds from the local budget for achieving investment objectives.” Source: PNDL Methodological Norms (MRDPA Minister Order 1851/2013). 56. In any case, at the beginning of 2014, the funding allocation was roughly equivalent across counties – around EUR 5 to EUR 5.7 million. On the one hand, this demonstrates the MRPDA’s commitment to making the PNDL funds available to authorities in all parts of Romania. On the other hand, the outcome may suggest that there is no clear prioritization of investments based on counties’ different characteristics. By contrast, the ROP 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 (in draft form, as of August 2014), for example, made specific commitments to less developed areas, allocating significantly larger shares of funding particularly to the North-East, South-East, and South Regions. Preparation of Project Proposals and County-Level Prioritization 57. Once the MRDPA decides on the indicative PNDL funding allocation for each county, county councils put together the list of projects proposed at the county and local level – both new and ongoing/unfinished investments. 20 To this end, local authorities submit their proposals to county councils or , “in justified circumstances,” directly to the MRDPA, as recently mandated by Article 3 of GEO 30/2014 and MRDPA Minister Order 20 See Article 9 (4). 27 919/2014. It is unclear what situation would qualify as “justified.” The PNDL Methodological Norms include a clear template for project proposals, which applies to both new and ongoing investments. 21 This asks for: the name of the project; the name of the applicant/local authority; the location of the project; main physical characteristics; total value of the investment; total value of eligible costs to be financed from the PNDL; dat a regarding the design contract (contract ID number, value, etc.); and, for ongoing investments, the data regarding the construction works, the percentage of the project completed to date, and the deadline for project completion. 58. Next, county Ccouncils have 15 days to send to the MRDPA the list of proposed investments, based on Annex 3 of the PNDL Methodological Norms. Essentially, this is a table listing the projects proposed for financing through the program in a particular year, divided up by new and ongoing investments, and further by sub-program (i.e., “the modernization of the Romanian village,” “urban regeneration of municipalities and towns,” and “county-level infrastructure”). The list of proposed investments has to be accompanied by a justification note explaining how each county council decided to prioritize projects submitted by local authorities. 59. Under the current PNDL framework, county councils prioritize project proposals from local authorities within their jurisdiction based on four possible criteria, out of which “at least one should be used” :  Signing date of the goods/work/service contract, as applicable;  Physical status (% complete);  Population benefitting from the investment; and  Local budget’s percentage of co-financing. 60. As with the PNDL’s criteria for allocating funds between counties, the current prioritization criteria for selecting interventions within counties are broad and ambiguous. This means that county councils have significant leverage to decide how to prioritize investments in their jurisdiction. In their current form, the methodological norms do not require county councils to use all four criteria, but merely to choose one out of the four listed above. This may mean that a county could decide solely based on the number of beneficiaries, while another could only look at the signing date of the contract. At the same time, it is unclear how a particular criterion should be deployed: for example, would a project with an older signing date take precedence over a newer one, or the other way around? Also, how should a local authority measure the population benefitting from a specific investment, say a local road that connects to a national road? It could be just the population of a commune or the population of a much larger area (e.g., within 20, 40, or even 60 minutes of the locality). Additionally, there are no defined weights among criteria. 21 See Annex 2 of the PNDL Methodological Norms, included in Annex 2 in this document. 28 Project Selection, Prioritization, and Contracting by the MRDPA 61. Based on the lists received from county councils across Romania, the MRDPA makes the final selection of projects that receive PNDL funding in a given year. Once again, the methodological norms do not define a clear, transparent selection process. The final selection is to be based on the proposals received from county councils, as well as on “[the Ministry’s] own data and specialized assessments.” 22 It is unclear what data are deployed in such evaluations. The same document notes that the selection is done exclusively by the MRDPA if county councils do not abide by the 15-day timeline or if they fail to prioritize investments based on at least one of the four criteria specified in the law. The finalized list of interventions is approved through the MRDPA’s Minister Order, including an annex with the full set of projects (for each of them, the annex simply notes the name of the administrative-territorial unit, the name of the project, and the sum channeled from the state budget). 62. There are slightly different requirements for applicants with ongoing vs. new projects. For the former, local authorities need to send to the MRDPA the documents that show the project’s current phase of completion, the updated value of remaining expenses to be incurrent for the finalization of the intervention, and public procurement contracts that have been signed previously, including addenda, if any. Upon verification of such documents, the process can move forward to the contracting phase. 63. For new investment projects, beneficiaries are required to submit to the MRDPA the corresponding technical documentation. In most cases, this refers to feasibility studies for new interventions or the documentation for approving intervention works (DALI 23 ) for existing infrastructure. Feasibility studies and DALIs are not eligible for reimbursement through the PNDL and have to have been developed through the applicant’s own resources, in accordance with the regulations set by GD 28/2008. GEO 28/2013 also notes that the documentation must prove that the proposed projects abide by the applicable cost standards. However, cost standards are provided only for county roads, communal roads, and for water projects. No cost standards are provided for wastewater projects, as these are considered to require quite different technical solutions from case to case. 24 64. It is worth noting that local authorities who seek to access PNDL funds do not submit formal applications that are comparable to the complex documents required by EU-funded programs. The bulk of an “application” is the technical documentation corresponding to the proposed project – i.e., the feasibility study and/or the detailed technical design. In field interviews, PNDL beneficiaries express satisfaction with the 22 PNDL Methodological Norms, Article 9 (8). 23 “Documentație de Avizare a Lucrărilor de Interventii ” (Documentation for the Approval of Intervention Works). 24 In practice, MRDPA technical staff use a simple rule of thumb for benchmarking sanitation projects, namely that they should not exceed 1.5 times the cost of equivalent water projects. 29 current system’s simplicity and relatively quick processing of applications. In effect, under the current system, requiring a formal form with categories similar to those included in applications for EU funds – e.g., “project relevance for strategic objectives,” “economic impact,” “technical features,” “social/environmental impact,” etc. – would not add much value. This is because the actual prioritization and, essentially, the “preselection” of projects happen at the level of county councils. The MRDPA only verifies that submitted proposals are in accordance with a set of criteria – it is more of an eligibility check than a thorough technical and financial evaluation. This is not to say that the technical-economic data related to the project is not assessed by MRDPA evaluators, but only that projects that make it thus far generally go through contracting. Even if a proposal initially fails the check, MRDPA staff recommends the necessary improvements to beneficiaries, enabling projects to move to the next phases (pending the successful resolution of suggested changes). 65. Recently, changes were introduced to the PNDL’s methodological norms to increase the efficiency of assessing and approving new project proposals. Until June 2014, the technical documentation would be first assessed by DG RDI within the MRDPA and then sent to the Ministry’s Technical-Economic Council (TEC). Without the TEC’s formal approval, projects would not be eligible for financing. Citing the low capacity of the TEC to assess proposals and the long delays incurred in the process, the MRDPA eliminated this step through Ministry Order 1851/2013. Currently, new projects pre-approved for financing through the PNDL only go through an assessment by the technical unit of the DG RDI, which primarily evaluates the following:  whether the technical documentation is complete and in accordance with GD 28/2008;  whether the applicant’s folder includes the local/county council’s decision for approving the project’s technical-economic indicators and for ensuring the required co-financing; and  whether the expenditures are properly presented and do not exceed current cost standards. 66. This rather simplistic PNDL project evaluation minimizes the risk of low absorption of funds by ensuring that the full budget envelope goes to pre-approved projects that eventually end up getting financed and using up the allocated funds . A potential upside of this system is that money that is not spent under the PNLD can be relatively easily reallocated under the same annual budget (if not too late in the year), either to another MRDPA activity or to another ministry. This is obviously not the case with EU structural funds, which Romania and other member states stand to lose if they cannot spend them in due time. Again, generally speaking, interview data reveal that PNDL beneficiaries appreciate the current system for its speed and responsiveness in processing applications. 67. Even so, the PNDL should aspire to have a selection model that is as transparent and legitimate as it is clear and efficient – if not for the fear of losing funds, at least as a way to ensure a smooth, predictable project cycle for applicants and beneficiaries. In fact, 30 two of the current selection criteria – the date of signing the contract and the physical status of the project – appear to imply that a more advanced investment, which can easily recommence and start absorbing money, could take priority over completely new interventions. 25 Subsequent chapters focus in much greater depth on the PNDL project selection model and prioritization criteria, suggestions options for improving the current system. Implementation 68. Once the contract between the MRDPA and local authorities is signed, actual implementation can commence. The exact stages will depend on whether the project is new or ongoing. In the former case, the beneficiary of PNDL funds will have to organize public procurement procedures, in line with the applicable legislation (OUG 34/2006). In some cases, these procedures take a long time – due to challenges in court, lack of offers, or other reasons specific to each project – which may aggravate the risk of not using up the funds allocated for a particular year. This is because the PNDL is not a multi-annual program like an EU-funded instrument, which creates inherent incentives for applicants to submit for consideration smaller, easier projects that can be carried out in 1-2 years. If the project is ongoing and construction work has already begun in a previous year (through the PNDL or a different program), depending on a case-by-case basis, the beneficiary may continue previous engagement with service providers and contractors. 69. Payments and reimbursements are critical factors for a smooth, successful implementation. Based on the methodological norms (Articles 16-17), beneficiaries submit reimbursement requests first to county councils, which then submit a consolidated request for each county to the MRDPA. This system was then changed to allow beneficiaries to request funds directly from the MRDPA, essentially simplifying the process by eliminating a step. Some county councils report, however, that local city halls sometimes fail to send them a copy of reimbursement requests sent to the Ministry, thus requiring repeated requests to keep them in the loop. According to county council staff interviewed, they want to remain involved to be able to coordinate and monitor the implementation process in their respective jurisdiction, as required by the PNDL implementation norms. Once it approves the requests received, the Ministry channels the funds – within the set annual limits and based on the proofs/documents received (“situații de lucrări”) – directly to beneficiaries. Finally, beneficiaries send back to the MRDPA the proof of payment of service providers (i.e., showing that the funds received were used for the intended purpose). 25The exact prioritization mechanisms is unknown, as explained earlier, because the methodological norms leave it to county councils and the MRDPA to decide which criterion/criteria apply. 31 70. In addition, beneficiaries are responsible for monitoring work progress and reporting updates to county councils and the MRDPA. The flow of reports is similar to the initial one presented above for financing requests: local beneficiaries send all documents corresponding to PNDL investments to county councils; every quarter, county councils send to the MRDPA a consolidated update on the progress of construction works. Upon request, beneficiaries are required to send to the MRDPA any document related to the financed project. For its part, the MRDPA is responsible for the monitoring and controlling the program’s implementation. In this capacity, the Ministry can appoint representatives who, together with counterparts from the State Inspectorate for Constructions, verify the accuracy of reported data and compare it to the reality on the ground. Post-Implementation 71. The current legal framework includes no details on requirements for the post - implementation phase – i.e., tracking the project’s evolution upon completion. At least based on the methodological norms, once the actual works are finished, the beneficiary sends a copy of the completion report to the Ministry. If and when the warranty period expires, the local authority again sends a copy of the formula documentation (“procesul verbal de recepție final” ) to the MRDPA. Beyond that, the two key post-implementation functions for ay investment program – i.e., ex-post monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and knowledge sharing – appear to be missing at this point in the PNDL’s evolution. Put differently, there is no formal process for evaluating the impact of completed investments and there are no institutionalized efforts for communicating good practices among past, current, and future beneficiaries of PNDL funds. This is not surprising for a young program like the PNDL; still, going forward, it would be important to set-up ex-post mechanisms to ensure the continuous improvement of the instrument. Subsequent chapters provide more in-depth suggestions for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, including through performance and impact indicators. 32 Chapter III: Good Practices of Project Selection for EU-Funded Programs in Comparison with the PNDL 72. EU-funded programs in Romania offer plenty of good practice approaches that can serve as inspiration for the improvement of the PNDL Project Selection Model. They come embedded with years-long experience of other EU countries. The project selection models they use have been tried, tested, and refined over years of implementing investment projects. Moreover, drawing ideas from these types of instruments can also ensure proper coordination across different investment programs in Romania at the national, regional, and local level. 73. EU-funded programs have, however, a level of complexity that may not be feasible for the PNDL, and a processing capacity that may not be replicable, so caution is needed to ensure that any proposed policy measures are feasible in practice. For one, EU-funded instruments have the staff that enables them to operate at a higher, more sophisticated level. For example, the Regional Operational Programme has a staff of over 500 working in the Managing Authority and the Regional Development Agencies, having processed around 3,400 projects for the 2007-2013 programming period (Figure 5 provides an idea of ROP’s complexity). By comparison, the PNDL has a staff of less than 40, managing around 2,400 projects in 2014. Figure 5. Key players in the implementation of ROP 2007-2013 (as of April 2013) Source: The World Bank. 2013. ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020. 33 74. In what follows, this report provides an overview of some of the key elements of EU-funded programs and discusses which would be feasible for the current PNDL. We also discuss the differences between EU-funded and state-budget-funded programs, which can help explain why some of the elements of the former are hard to adopt by the latter. The focus will primarily be on those Operational Programmes and specific Priority Axes that have a direct relevance for the PNDL: the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 and its Priority Axis 2 on Road Infrastructure, Priority Axis 1 on Integrated Urban Development Plans, and Priority Axis 3 – Educational, Health, and Social infrastructure; the National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and its Measure 322 on Local Infrastructure Development; and the Sectoral Operational Programme Environment 2007- 2013 and its Priority Axis 1 on the Extension of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. Given that the 2014-2020 operational programmes have not been finalized yet, they will not be discussed in this report. 75. An analysis of the project selection models employed by operational programmes requires looking at all the four stages of the project selection cycle: pre- application, application, implementation, post-implementation. Pre-application and general overview of programmes 76. A characteristic of all Operational Programmes is that they have a programmatic document at their foundation. The programmatic document lays out key sector dynamics and needs and details, and describes how these needs will be addressed by the program. It is of critical importance, as it forms the basis for the entire project selection model. Among other things, it provides potential applicants with key information related to the type of investments that are eligible for financing under a particular program. The Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 77. The stated objective of the ROP 2007-2013 is both comprehensive and complex. Specifically, it is to “support the economic, social, territorially balanced and sustainable development of the Romanian Regions, according to their specific needs and resources, focusing on urban growth poles, improving the business environment and basic infrastructure, in order to make the Romanian Regions, especially the ones lagging behind, more attractive places to live, visit, invest in, and work. A characteristic of all Operational Programmes is that they have a programmatic document at their foundation. ” To achieve these objectives, the ROP 2007-2013 was organized around five priority axes, while at the same time acknowledging that it would not be able to achieve these objectives alone, but would require the complementary inputs of other investment programs, of key targeted policies, and of the private sector. Of particular interest to this study is Axis 2: Improvement of regional and local transport infrastructure and Axis 3: Educational, Health, and Social infrastructure (DMI 3.1. Health infrastructure and DMI 3.4. Educational infrastructure). 34 78. The ROP 2007-2013 Priority Axis 2 aims to “increase the accessibility of the Regions and the mobility of population, goods and services, in order to foster sustainable economic development.” Around 150 projects have been contracted under this axis, for a total value of over EUR 1.4 billion, with much of this going to the rehabilitation of county roads. One of the key stated aims of this priority axis is to improve connectivity to the TEN- T Network and reduce the incidence of road accidents. These stated aims have in turn informed the elaboration of the evaluation and selection grids for this priority axis. 79. The ROP 2007-2013 Priority Axis 3 aims to ”create the premises for better access of the population to essential services, contributing to the achievement of the European objective of economic and social cohesion, by improving infrastructure for health, education, social and public safety in emergency situations .” Four key areas of intervention were identified under this priority, out of which the most relevant in this context are 3.1. Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of the health services’ infrastructure and 3.4. Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of pre- university, university education and continuous vocational training infrastructure. Around 600 projects have been contracted under this axis, for a total value of over EUR 1 billion, out of which: over 90 projects were contracted on DMI 3.1., for a total value of over EUR 300 million and over 290 projects were contracted on DMI 3.4., for a total value of over EUR 480 million. 80. The Programmatic Document in turn becomes the blueprint for elaborating Applicant Guides for individual axes. The Applicant Guides help potential applicant’s determine whether the projects they want funded under the ROP are actually eligible for financing. The Guides cover issues such as: who and what is eligible; conditions that applicants and proposed projects have to fulfill; evaluation and selection criteria; monitoring procedures and reporting; etc. 81. At the pre-application stage, the beneficiary deals primarily with the intermediate body (in the case of the ROP, the Regional Development Agencies). Intermediate Bodies usually have Helpdesk units that are tasked to discuss with potential applicants and provide guidance. In turn, interested applicants submit project proposals and supporting documentation to the RDA in their region once a call for proposals has been launched. The RDA checks the administrative documents and eligibility requirements and ensures that the applicant’s file is complete. If everything is in order, the process moves further to the technical and financial evaluation stage, which is completed with the help of external experts (contracted either by the Managing Authority or directly by the RDAs). 82. In the case of the PNDL, the County Councils act as de facto intermediate bodies. However, this set up has a number of short-comings. On the one hand, county councils have a lot of leeway in selecting the projects to be sent to the PNDL for funding. Since the prioritization criteria they have to use are basic, and since the use of these criteria is not really monitored by the MRDPA, the county councils can in essence chose the projects they want. This of course can lead to a situation where politics drive project selection. At 35 the same time, the county councils are in an obvious conflict of interest, as they currently act both as an “intermediate body” and as beneficiaries of PNDL funds. As such, they can choose to fund their own projects over other projects. Ideally, the MRDPA should provide a share of county projects and local projects to be financed at the county level and clear eligibility and prioritization criteria. County councils could function as intermediate bodies for projects proposed by local authorities, while the MRDPA could check eligibility and prioritize project proposals that come from the county councils. The Sectoral Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013 83. The stated objective of the SOP Environment 2007-2013 programmatic document is to “improve the living standards and the environment, focusing in particular on meeting the environment acquis .” One of the strategic directions of the SOP Environment 2007-2013 is to improve people’s accessibility to public utilities and encourage local and regional development. To this end, Axis 1 of the SOP focuses on “The extension and modernization of water and wastewater systems.” 84. A number of sub-objectives are listed under Axis 1. These include: providing adequate water and sewage systems at accessible tariffs; providing adequate drinking water in all urban agglomerations; improving the purity of watercourses; improving sludge management; and creating innovative and efficient water management structures. When the programmatic document was elaborated, only 52% of the population in Romania had access to basic water and wastewater infrastructure. Moreover, the existent infrastructure was often underfunded, not well maintained, poorly managed, and atomized into several small operators. 85. Another key driver for the implementation of Axis 1 is the need to fulfill the acquis communautaire. According to the Accession Treaty, Romania has to comply with the acquis on wastewater collection, treatment and discharge. Thus, by 2015, a number of 263 agglomerations with more than 10,000 population equivalent (p.e.) have to be connected to a wastewater system. By 2018, 2,346 agglomerations with a p.e. of 2,000- 10,000 have to be connected to a wastewater system. The Accession Treaty also indicates that by 2015 compliance is required with Directive No. 98/83/EC on drinking water quality. Moreover, since the entire territory of Romania has been declared a sensitive area, all agglomerations of more than 10,000 people equivalent have to provide advanced wastewater treatment (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus removal). This means that additional costs are required even for the larger cities that have an operational wastewater treatment system in place. In fact, priority was given to projects implemented in larger cities, which have a higher number of beneficiaries, and where the environmental impact is therefore larger. To top it all, the Water Framework Directive also states that by 2015, 59% of the water bodies in Romania should be in good ecological status, requiring additional investments of around 6 billion Euro. This may require the proper coordination of investments in wastewater infrastructure, ensuring that a higher share of water bodies receive treated discharge from the human settlements located along them. 36 86. To achieve the stated objectives, Regional Operating Companies (ROC) have been established. The Regional Operating Companies usually cover the area of their respective counties, but not always. They were designed to bring together all operators in the region under one umbrella, and to thus achieve economies of scale and higher efficiency rates. Municipalities with drinking water and wastewater service have to join an Intercommunity Development Association (IDA) to which they delegate the exercise of their shareholder rights in the Regional Operating Company. Basically, local authorities are the beneficiaries of the SOP Environment 2007-2013 through the ROC. 87. All new investments to be made in the area covered by the Regional Operating Companies are laid out in the Water Masterplan for that region. All regions had to elaborate such masterplans, where they designate the agglomerations and clusters where investments will be made through the SOP Environment 2007-2013 and other financing sources. In essence, wastewater investments should only be done in localities with a population equivalent of over 2,000, while investments in water infrastructure can be made in all localities with more than 50 p.e. 88. Most local authorities that want to develop drinking water and wastewater infrastructure have to be part of the Water Masterplan, need to join the Inter-communal Development Association with the Regional Operating Company, and , when the investment is finished, have to cede operation of the new infrastructure to the ROC. The masterplan includes a full list of agglomerations and clusters where funds have to be prioritized in order to ensure compliance with the Acquis and the 2018 deadline. As such, new investments should be concentrated in the areas designated by the masterplan. In practice however, this often does not happen. 89. Many PNDL investments in water and wastewater have been done outside the provisions of the SOP Environment 2007-2013. Although at the political level the stated objective of these investments is to help achieve the EU Acquis on Water, in many cases these investments have been done in localities with less than 2,000 people equivalent, with the water and wastewater infrastructure being operated independently. Moreover, in some cases water and/or wastewater treatment plans have been created to service individual localities, although it would have been more efficient and more sustainable in the long run to have these systems service a cluster of localities. 90. From an institutional point of view, the MA for the SOP Environment 2007-2013 is also aided by intermediate bodies in the country’s 8 regions. The intermediate bodies are basically the first point of contact for applicants, and they perform the eligibility check. The evaluation of the project is also done at the IB level. If the IB determines that an application received requires more work, applicants have to redo the application until eligibility criteria are fulfilled. The full implementation mechanism for the SOP Environment is outlined above. 37 The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 91. PNDR, given its complexity, has set out objectives for each of its four major priority axes. Among these, the stated objective of Axis 3 is to “encourag e the diversification of the rural economy and through this and otherwise to improve the quality of life in the rural environment.” The programmatic document indicates for example that only half of the communes in Romania had access to the road network in 2004. Moreover, 25% of communes do not have all-season roads. In terms of the water and wastewater infrastructure, when the programmatic document was drafted, only 33% of the rural population had access to running water and only 10% had access to a public sewage network. The existence of a poorly-developed basic infrastructure in most communes acts as a limitation on the development of other basic services in the rural areas (cultural and recreational facilities, childcare facilities etc.) In most communes and villages, these services are very poorly-developed or in many cases, are almost non-existent. In 2006, only 7 percent of Romanian villages had kindergartens. Leisure centers and outdoor areas (playgrounds for children, parks, bike tracks, sports grounds, etc.) are also poorly represented. In regard to public sports related facilities in villages, in 2001 there were only 26 sport clubs. Most cultural centers, culture houses and other cultural establishments are in a serious situation of degradation and can no longer provide cultural services to the rural population, thus reducing their educational capability. Due to the lack of financial resources, many cultural establishments in the rural areas are no longer able to carry out their activities because of their advanced state of degradation. For example in 2002, of the country’s total of 6147 community centers, only 1874 were capable to carry out cultural activities. Moreover, despite the fact that 97 % of the community centers have their own headquarters, their equipment level is generally in a very unsatisfactory condition for 80% of them. 92. Axis 3 of the PNDR targets three key objectives, each with a subset of specific goals and measures. Of relevance to this task is the stated Strategic Objective to “Incr ease the attractiveness of rural areas. ” The Specific Objectives listed under this Strategic Objective include: “Creation and modernizing the basic physical infrastructure in rural areas”; “Improvement of the quality of the social, natural , and economic environment in the rural area”; “Protection and conservation of the rural cultural and natural patrimony”; “Creation, improvement , and diversification of tourism facilities and attractions. ” The following Specific Measures are listed under these Specific Objectives: Measure 322: “Village renewal and development, improvement of basic services for the economy and rural population, conservation and upgrading the rural heritage”; Measure 313: “Encouraging tourism activities”. Of these, it is Measure 322 that is of particular interest to this current work. 93. Proper coordination and a harmonized approach with other investment programmes is one of the stated objectives of the PNDR. This is something that was also mentioned in the other operational programmes discussed here – the ROP and the SOP Environment. Before these programmes are approved by the European Commission they have to show that they are complementary in nature, and do not duplicate investments. For example, the ROP undertakes works of rehabilitation for Category A historical 38 monuments in both urban and rural areas, as well as rehabilitation works for Category B historical monuments in urban areas. The PNDR undertakes works of rehabilitation for Category B historical monuments in rural areas. The ROP undertakes the rehabilitation of county roads and urban roads, while the PNDR undertakes the rehabilitation of communal roads. At the same time it is acknowledged that not all existing needs can be covered with available EU funds. For example, to achieve the EU Water Acquis objectives by 2018, there is an investment need of around 19 billion Euro. Of this, the SOP Environment had an allocation for 2007-2013 of only 3.2 billion Euro. It was therefore agreed that investments from other sources, such as the PNDR and state-budget funded programmes, were required. Investments regarding the rehabilitation of educational (schools) and health infrastructure was supported through ROP, while PNDR supported new investments for constructing kindergartens in rural area. 94. For the 2007-2013 Programming Period, PNDR allocated 1.6 billion Euro for Measure 322. Of this, only a fraction went to investments in water and wastewater. This shortage of investment in the water and wastewater, coupled with delays in implementation of the SOP Environment 2007-2013, indicates that Romania may face an infringement procedure in 2015 and 2018, as it will still be some distance away from the targets it has committed to reach. It may therefore pay off to consider focusing more resources (both EU funds and state-budget funds) on achieving the EU Water Acquis Objectives. It is also important to consider additional resources (e.g. private funds or PPP arrangements) that could be tapped to help meet these objectives. 95. The Applicant Guide for Measure 322 provides a number of critical eligibility criteria for potential PNDR applicants. For example, eligible beneficiaries for the development of communal roads are communes or intercommunity development associations (i.e., associations of localities). For the development of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, eligible applicants are communes or the regional operating company. Applicants have to prove that proposed water and wastewater projects are included in the Regional Water Masterplan and, once the investment is finalized, they have to cede operation of the system to the regional operating company. Moreover, these projects have to include both investments in water and wastewater systems. If applicants want to finance a project that is not included in the Regional Water Masterplan, they have to take on the administration of the system, as well as operation and maintenance costs. Investments that are not included in the Regional Water Masterplan have to focus on areas where: water supply is insufficient; there is a high incidence of draught; raw water is highly polluted; aquifer has a high concentration of nitrates. All investments done under Measure 322 also have to conform to the local General Urban Plan. 96. The Applicant Guide also provides funding caps for different types of investments and different types of beneficiaries. For example, the funding limit for infrastructure investments varies as such: EUR 1 million for individual investments done by a commune; EUR 3 million for individual investments done by an intercommunity development association; EUR 2.5 million for integrated projects done by a commune; EUR 39 6 million for integrated projects done by an intercommunity development association. Beneficiaries can apply for a maximum of two PNDR projects per programming period. 97. The institutional framework of PNDR also includes the use of intermediate bodies. Thus, a beneficiary who wants to apply for a PNDR project has to take the application to the County Payment Office for Rural Development and Fisheries (OJPDRP), which checks the conformity of the application. The applicants are contacted directly if the application requires improvements and they cannot move to the next stage until the necessary adjustments are made. The eligibility check for infrastructure development projects is done at the central level, by the Agency for Rural Investment Financing , on a sample of projects. This looks at the eligibility of the applicant, the project eligibility and selection criteria, the indicative budget, as well as the feasibility study and all annexed documents. Application 98. All Operational Programmes have an evaluation and selection phase, which serves as the key vehicle for prioritizing projects. The evaluation and selection system is in many respects the heart of a project selection model. The way the evaluation itself is done varies from program to program. In what follows we will discuss in more detail the evaluation and selection systems for the ROP 2007-2013, the SOP Environment 2007-2013, and the PNDR 2007-2013. The Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 99. The ROP 2007-2013 has tailored evaluation and selection grids for each individual priority axis. As with most evaluation and selection grids in use today, the proposed ROP system is not perfect. It does provide a basis however for a sound prioritization of investments. Annexes Ca and Cb include the detailed evaluation and selection grid. We will discuss some of the key elements of this grid. A more in-depth discussion and alternative proposals can be found in the World Bank report “Identification of Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020. ” 100. The evaluation and selection grid for ROP Axis 2 is split into two major sections: 1) contribution of the project to the realization of the ROP; 2) quality, maturity, and sustainability of the project. The criteria listed under the second section are quite straightforward and may be applied as such to several types of projects. The criteria listed under the first section normally follow the key objectives set out in the Programmatic Document. In this case, connectivity to the TEN-T of a proposed county road would garner a project the maximum score under criterion 1.1. Other criteria used include: potential to improve road safety; potential to reduce travel time and improve traffic conditions; the importance of the project to the region, as measured by the economic rate of return and the cost-benefit analysis. Of these four criteria, the first one (on connectivity to the TEN-T) was easiest to fulfil, so a significant number of projects contracted under the ROP now connect to the TEN-T (see figure below). Although connection to the TEN-T was not a strict requirement, and although the score for the TEN-T criterion was diluted by the other 3 criteria (the ROP 2007-2013 evaluation and selection grids apply no weights to different 40 criteria), a significant number of applicants drafted projects for the rehabilitation of county roads that connect to the TEN-T. Figure 6. County road projects financed through the ROP 2007 -2013 Note: The roads in red represent the TEN-T Network. The lines in blue represent the county road links financed through the ROP 2007-2013. 101. Given the limited resources, the county roads projects that were ultimately funded under Priority Axis 2 of the ROP 2007-2013 were not always the ideal choice. As discussed earlier in the report, investments in connective infrastructure, to be most impactful, should ideally achieve two key desiderata: enable as many people as possible easier access to opportunities (jobs, higher education, healthcare, culture, entertainment, etc.); enable private companies an easier access to a larger labor pool. The key places of opportunity in Romania are the larger cities. That is why the team has recommended that improved connectivity to Romania’s 7 growth poles and to the other 33 county residences should be one of the criteria to be used in evaluating and selecting county road projects. As the map below highlights, the rehabilitation of roads (in blue) that connect to the TEN-T does not always also improve access to a center of opportunity. 102. The resources required to rehabilitate the country’s county and communal road network exceed what is made available through the ROP 2014-2020 and the PNDL. The sum required to upgrade the county and communal roads that are made of stone or earth is somewhere between EUR 6 and 12 billion. The draft ROP 2014-2020 programmatic document has allocated around EUR 0.9 billion for Axis 6: Road Transport Infrastructure. The PNDL has allocated around EUR 110 million for the rehabilitation of county and communal roads, in 2014 – 50% of the total PNDL allocation for 2014. If we assume that 41 the same amount will be allocated every year from 2014 through 2022, than around EUR 1 billion will be available for this programmatic period. Thus, the ROP 2014-2020 and the PNDL would provide a total of 1.9 billion Euro for county and local road investments – less than a third of what is required in the sector. 103. Even assuming that county councils would allocate all their capital investments for 2014-2022 for the rehabilitation of county and communal roads, there would still be a shortfall. In the 2014 World Bank report on Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, Victor Giosan and Graham Glenday have developed a simple but elegant methodology for assessing the absorption capacity of sub-national authorities. In short, they have postulated that over a longer period of time, sub-national authorities should not allocate more than 30% of their non-earmarked revenues for new capital investments, to avoid being in a situation where they cannot cover the operation and maintenance costs for these investments. The team has done the calculations and, for the 2014-2022 period, it is prudent for county councils to allocate only around EUR 5.9 billion for capital investments. Assuming that all these funds will be allocated for the rehabilitation of county roads, there may still be a shortfall in funding. 104. Given the limited resources, investments from the PNDL should focus on maximizing impact. Thus, priority should be given to county roads that improve accessibility to the growth poles, within a 60 minute access area, and to the county residences, within a 40 minute access area. The two maps below highlight those county roads. Figure 7. County roads connecting to a growth pole within a 60 -minute access area 42 Figure 8. County roads connecting to a county residence within a 40-minute access area 105. Ideally, the selection of PNDL road projects in the future would be done taking such impact criteria into consideration. These prioritization criteria could also be used to guide the investment portfolio of the county councils. Moreover, the different investment programmes in Romania should coordinate their approaches and ensure that they undertake work in a complementary fashion. Component 1 of the current work program, on the “Alignment and coordination of strategies and processes for public investments, ” discusses these issues of coordination in more detail. 106. Currently, there is no clear strategy for how PNDL finances road investment. As the map below highlights, PNDL has financed both county roads and communal roads throughout Romania, without following a discernable pattern. Moreover, the large majority of financed projects are relatively small in scale. 43 Figure 9. County and communal roads financed through PNDL 2014 107. Moreover, it is does not seem that PNDL investments in county roads are coordinated with similar investments done under the ROP 2007-2013. As the map below highlights, with a few exceptions (such as County Road 682, connecting to Arad, and spanning Arad and Timiș Counties), county road investments under the ROP and the PNDL seem to be done independently of each other. Improved integrated planning in the future may ensure that the funds channeled through these two programmes will achieve a higher overall impact. 44 Figure 10. County Roads coordination btw. ROP and PNDL 108. The evaluation and selection grids for ROP Axis 3 (DMI 3.1 and DMI 3.4) are also split into two major sections: 1) contribution of the project to the realization of the ROP; 2) quality, maturity, and sustainability of the project. The criteria listed under the first section take into consideration the relevance of the project for the objectives of the Priority Axis and of the intervention area, the extent to which there is a real need for education infrastructure or a problem in this sector at the level of the territory where it is implemented (only for DMI 3.4), and the importance of the project for the region. The criteria listed under the second section take into consideration the degree of preparedness/maturity of the project, the implementation methodology, documentation coherence (Feasibility study), the technical solution, the necessity for co-financing, the budget of the project, environmental protection and energy efficiency, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, information society (only for DMI 3.4), the applicant’s capacity to monitor the project implementation and project sustainability at the end of non- reimbursable funding. The Sectoral Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013 109. The selection of projects under the SOP Environment 2007-2013 is done in a more normative way than ROP 2007-2013 investments. In essence, Regional Water Masterplans have been developed for the areas covered by Regional Operating Companies, and these masterplans include the key targeted areas. Since projects are pre- 45 selected there is no formal prioritization. However, each submitted project, in order to receive financing has t0 first be analyzed using a Project Checklist (see Annex 5). 110. The Regional Water Masterplans lay out the priority investment needs to ensure that the EU Water Acquis is fulfilled by 2018 with the lowest possible costs. As such, all water and wastewater investments should follow these masterplans, including investments from the PNDL and from PNDR. Moreover, localities or Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) that wish to invest in this sector should ideally enter the IDA established around the Regional Operating Company (ROC) and should cede operation of the new system to the ROC once the investment is completed. This ensures an integrated approach, higher efficiency rates in operation, financial sustainability, and economies of scale. Investments outside the designated agglomerations and clusters in the masterplans should only be allowed when applicants can prove that they have enough resources to operate and maintain the new investment, and only if the technologies and solutions proposed conform to the Water Law No. 107/1996 (the transposed version of the EC Water Framework Directive). 111. Given the large gap remaining to fulfill the EU Water Acquis, it is very important for public authorities in Romania to prioritize investments in this sector. As discussed earlier, the estimated cost to fulfill the EU Acquis by 2018 was placed at around EUR 19 billion. Of this sum, only 3.2 billion was covered by the SOP Environment 2007-2013. Large Infrastructure OP 2014-2020 will likely have a substantial allocation for investments in water and wastewater between 2014 and 2020, but most likely not more than the 2007- 2013 allocation. This means that the PNDL and the PNDR, as well as other potential investment programs in Romania, will have to supplement these sums to ensure that Romania will not be in a situation of facing infringement procedures in 2015 and 2018. Among other things, this may require to have a larger PNDL and PNDR allocation to water and wastewater projects, at least for 2015-2018, to the detriment of other type of investment projects (e.g., roads). Ultimately, every Euro that Romania will have to pay as penalty for not fulfilling the Water Acquis will represent money that cannot be used for other infrastructure investment projects. The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 112. The evaluation and selection of PNDR projects is done on a competitive basis. For its part, the ROP 2007-2013 did project selection on a first-come first-serve (FIFO) basis. Projects would be evaluated based on when they were received for analysis and would move on to the next stage if the project scored at least a 3.5 points (out of 6 points) on the technical and financial evaluation grid. For the PNDR, only the projects with the highest score within a given call for proposals allocation would be financed. The projects would be scored using an evaluation grid and could receive a total of 100 points. Annex 6 includes the evaluation grid used by PNDR for Measure 322. 113. Interestingly, the evaluation criteria for all types of investments that can be done under this measure are clustered together. Thus, the same evaluation sheet is used for 46 road, water, wastewater, and social infrastructure projects. One of the reasons for this clustering is a purposeful encouragement of integrated projects, which include more than one type of project. Thus, locality or IDAs that submit an integrated project also are likely to receive a higher score than applicants that only submit an individual project. 114. The criteria used to score projects are relatively simple and straightforward. For example, 10 points can be obtained if the commune has not benefited from EU funds in the past. 5 to 10 points can be obtained based on the poverty index registered in the commune. 5 points are offered if the project is part of a local or county development strategy. 5 points are offered for integrated projects. 15 points are offered for a water/wastewater project if the project is part of the Regional Water Masterplan. 5 points are offered for water/wastewater projects that are in an area with insufficient water or an area with a high incidence of droughts. 5 points are offered for water/wastewater projects that are in an area with high pollution or an area where the aquifer has a high concentration of nitrates. 25 points are offered for road projects that enable connection to main transport links (county or national roads, railways, and waterways). 5 to 10 points can be obtained for social infrastructure projects. And 5 to 10 points can be obtained for cultural heritage projects. 115. From the way these criteria are designed there is a definite bias toward road projects. In fact, out of 802 projects contracted under Measure 322, 623 had a road component. By comparison, only 372 of the projects had a water or wastewater component. Given the need to fulfill the EU Water Acquis by 2018, it may pay off to think about developing evaluation and selection criteria that encourage more water and wastewater project. For example, water and wastewater projects that are part of the Regional Water Masterplan can receive 25 points, while road projects may receive only a maximum of 15 points. 116. Elements of the evaluation and selection criteria used by PNDR could also be considered for the PNDL. These criteria are simple enough and using similar criteria could help coordinate efforts under the two programs. It would be important, however, to lay out rules for making the two programs complementary, and to ensure that there are no overlaps. The three figures below provide quick snapshots of the overlaps (in red) for investments in roads, water, and wastewater. Overlaps for roads are particularly noteworthy. 47 Figure 11. PNDL and PNDR complementarity of road projects Figure 12. PNDL and PNDR complementarity of water projects 48 Figure 13. PNDL and PNDR complementarity of wastewater projects Implementation 117. All Operational Programmes have a clear procedure for the monitoring of project implementation. In the case of the ROP 2007-2013, the intermediate bodies (IBs) assign a monitoring officer (MO) to each approved project. The MOs conduct regular monitoring visits on site and serve as liaisons for any issues that may arise during the implementation phase. The Managing Authority (MA) also conducts regular monitoring missions, but only for a sample of projects. The arrangements for SOP Environment 2007-2013 are similar to the ROP’s, with Intermediate Bodies acting as the main interface between the Ministry of Environment (as the program’s Managing Authority) and beneficiaries. As under the ROP, IBs also play the main role in verifying reimbursement requests against the physical progress of financed projects. They also signal any potential issues or irregularities to the MA. Finally, for the PNDR, the Agency for Financing Rural Investments (APDRP), a central- level body that essentially acts as an IB for MA within the Ministry of Agriculture, carries out field verifications. In addition to all this, the National Audit Authority performs its own verifications of EU-funded interventions, also based on a risk-adjusted sampling methodology. 118. In a similar vein, once reimbursement requests are verified, payments are made to beneficiaries through a third-party, central-level agency. Per EU regulations, every MA has the right to verify the implementation of the program and answers to the EU authorities for any potential irregularities. 49 Post-Implementation 119. All EU-funded programs rely on clear ex-post monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, including program and project-level indicators. A good M&E system serves several purposes. For one, it helps track the performance of a specific project and the extent to which this project has reached its output indicators – this is a mandatory task that the European Commission requires of all Operational Programmes. However, in addition to what the EC asks for, a good M&E system can help evaluate if projects, and the overall program that finances them, have achieved planned outcomes, and if they have had an actual development impact. It is particularly important to have a set of SMART indicators – specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. The general trend, at the EU level and in the broader development arena, is to adopt outcome measures (i.e., actual impact) as opposed to simple output indicators (e.g., number of kilometers of roads, etc.). Figure 14. A proper M&E system with optimal feedback loops Source: European Commission. 2006. “Indicative Guidelines on Evaluation Method” . 120. At the same time, the M&E system of EU-funded instruments relies on a complex institutional set-up, centered on a Monitoring Committee (MC). The MC brings together a variety of stakeholders involved (MA and IB staff, beneficiary representatives, etc.) and is led by the ministry that oversees a particular program. For the 2007-2013 programming period, the functions of MCs have been drawn in accordance to EC Regulation 1083/2006, which mandates these bodies to ensure the effectiveness and quality of program implementation. 50 Chapter IV: Assessment and Policy Measures for the Overall PNDL Project Selection Model 121. This chapter reviews the overall PNDL project selection model and proposes policy measures for improvement. All key phases of the program are covered, from preparation through the application phase, selection and prioritization, implementation, and post-implementation. Importantly, the sub-section on prioritization is just a preview for the next chapter, which focuses specifically on the main topic of this final report – namely, how to improve the prioritization of proposals submitted for PNDL financing for all the main types of investments (roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure). 122. The policy measures proposed below are based on several sources. These include: observations regarding the implementation of EU-funded programs, particularly the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013, which was evaluated by a World Bank team in 2012-2014; multiple rounds of interviews with PNDL management; a limited number of field interviews conducted between September 8 and 26, 2014 with county councils (Cluj, Bistrița Năsăud, and Sălaj) and 6 communes in the three aforementioned counties; and review of 159 projects (at the feasibility study/DALI phase), which took place between July 14 -November 18, 2014: Table 3. PNDL applications reviewed by Bank team (July-October 2014)26 Total Project type number of Road Water/ Social Review session projects infrastructure sewerage infrastructure (%) (%) (%) July 14-23, 2014 74 78.3% 21.7% 0% Sep. 30 – Oct. 6, 2014 44 75% 15.9% 9.1% Nov. 6 -18, 2014 41 46% 19% 35% TOTAL 159 66.4% 18.9% 14.7% 123. Before going into the assessment of actual steps involved in the PNDL’s project cycle, it is important to consider the current program’s structure. Under the current system, there are only two links in the PNDL chain: applicants/beneficiaries and the MRDPA. This differs from the typical institutional structure of EU-funded instruments, where there is an additional Intermediate Body (IB), which can shoulder some of the operational burden, allowing the MA to focus on strategic tasks. One could say that county councils are de facto intermediate bodies (e.g., they collect project proposals from local authorities and propose a priority list), but there is no formal institutional set-up in this direction. 26 See Annex 7 for a detailed description of the proposed guidelines on the selection of projects’ technical documentation to be screened as part of the current project. 51 124. Currently, the MRDPA faces strict capacity constraints given its limited staff and long list of tasks that need to be completed. All evaluations of proposals are done internally by the technical unit of the DG RDI, while the Technical Economic Council (TEC) is no longer involved in the decision-making – precisely because, previously, TEC decisions generated long delays before the contracting phase. At the same time, the technical unit has only a small staff, with a multitude of responsibilities and typically no access to salary bonus schemes as available for public servants involved in the management of EU-funded projects. The low capacity may also explain why the PNDL has chosen a simple evaluation and selection model, with as few hurdles as possible. 125. The MRDPA is, essentially, the Managing Authority (MA) of the PNDL, the key actor in charge with the program’s management and implementation. In this capacity, it should focus most of its efforts on strategic tasks related to vision-setting, high-level planning and coordination, program-level monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and only sample-based verifications at the project level. In other words, DG RDI – particularly given its low operational capacity – should concentrate on the key elements of the program, where it can add a lot of value, as opposed to the nitty-gritty, day-to-day implementation work such as project-specific actions (evaluations, notifications, verifications, answering questions, etc.). 126. The following sections make several proposals for relying more on County Councils at the county level and, to the extent possible, on Regional Development Agencies at the regional level. These actors need not necessarily become formal “Intermediate Bodies” of the PNDL, but they can collaborate with the MRDPA to take on some of the day-to-day tasks and free up capacity within DG RDI. In particular, by lacking effective IBs in the current centralized structure, the MRDPA cannot always stay close to the applicants and beneficiaries of the program. There is a need to delegate operational and beneficiary support tasks to a lower administrative level – most likely, County Councils, as the program is designed and implemented at the county level. Of course, this would run somewhat contrary to the recent trend of centralizing program management and implementation at the MRDPA level (as noted elsewhere, applicants can now submit proposals directly to the ministry, without going through the respective County Council first). But it is still advisable to separate strategic from operational tasks and allow the MRDPA to focus on the former, reducing the administrative burden it currently faces and relying more on County Councils for program implementation. To respond to the need for strict oversight from the central level, the MRDPA should design clear procedures for verifying that County Councils act according to the set PNDL priorities and abide by the agreed selection and prioritization criteria in allocating funding. In any case, under the framework proposed in this report, there should be very limited room for subjective decisions on which projects receive funding in a given year; the algorithm, set at the central level, needs to be rigorously followed at the County Council / IB level, and monitoring by the MRDPA will simply focus on determining whether there are any deviations from the agreed methodology. 52 Figure 15. “Division of labor” between MRDPA and PNDL “Intermediate Bodies” (County Councils) Strategic Tasks (high “competitive advantage” for MA) • Vision-setting • Coordination and integration • MA efforts are divided • Communication with IBs, Critical MA- between strategic roles level tasks beneficiaries and implementation- • Capacity building support (sharing focused actions of best practices, methodologies, • MA should focus on high- etc.) value-add, strategic tasks • Implementation-focused tasks should remain at IB Implementation-Focused Tasks (high “competitive advantage” for Critical IB-level IBs – such as County Councils) tasks • Procedural approvals based on (to full extent conformity checks possible) • Validation of notifications/addenda 9 1) The MRDPA Prepares the Program 127. The MRDPA established the PNDL in 2013 taking into account high -level government priorities and the need to improve coordination of investments. Chapter II has described in depth how the PNDL came about in the context of the challenges facing PNDI, initiated under a previous administration. The PNDL’s foundations were laid through the Governing Program 2013-2016, which set as a core priority the financing of a basic package of services for rural areas, including roads, drinking water, sanitation, social infrastructure, etc. for achieving “minimum standards of living [everywhere in Romania].” 27 In early 2013, the government also felt the need to unify in one program various previous investment efforts funded at the central level, mostly by the MRDPA. It is thus safe to say that the PNDL emerged as a top-down priority. This is not to say that the local level did not seek funding for infrastructure projects, but extensive consultations on the structure, goals, and implementation of the PNDL did not take place. This shortcoming should be addressed in future efforts to improve the program. 1.1. Conduct consultations to inform program design 128. Indeed, effective investment programs should be based on a highly participatory strategic planning process, with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. For one, this ensures that the program is well targeted and actually able to address development needs on the ground. If rural communities need roads, water, and sanitation systems, a 27 See Governing Program 2013-2016, Chapter 10 on “Development and Administration”. 53 program centered on, say, research centers for villages would waste precious resources. To be able to respond to actual needs, the central government should listen to local communities and involve them actively in the planning process, in addition to drawing from local development strategies. Importantly, in the case of the PNDL, programming may not need to happen annually, though under the current system the budgets are set every year (the sections below call for multi-year budgeting). That said, after a number of years of implementation (e.g., seven years in the case of EU-funded programs), the original strategy of the program should be revisited and updated to reflect evolving needs. 129. In addition to helping define eligible project types, early inputs from future applicants and beneficiaries can help refine operational procedures , smoothing the implementation process down the road. For example, draft application forms, reimbursement requests, progress reports, and other key documents may be circulated before a program’s official launch. Certain required data may not be available at the level of local authorities or they may require special efforts to collect them, exceeding the capacity of a local council. Consultation sessions, surveys, and focus groups with various local actors (e.g., local governments, NGOs, etc.) should test different options of program procedures, allowing the MRDPA to choose the design that best fits the needs of the PNDL and the capacity of future beneficiaries. Again, bottom-up consultations need not take place every year; in fact, PNDL procedures should stay as stable and as predictable as possible from year to year. Every so often, however, the MRDPA can seek feedback from beneficiaries to increase the efficiency of processes. 130. The implication for the current PNDL is to build into the program institutionalized mechanisms for consultations and feedback loops. This can be done through County Councils at the level of each county and through Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in each of Romania’s eight development regions. These actors can collect ideas and general/specific feedback from the local level, ensuring that the PNDL’s design and programming is in line with actual needs. Consultations should be open, transparent, and predictable in terms of scheduling, review of comments submitted, and final decisions on program design. In addition, associative structures of local public administrations (Association of Towns, Association of Communes, National Union of County Councils) could be mobilized for consultation/feed-back on the PNDL. To enable such a communication process, the Ministry may develop a simple standard template form, requesting input on the design of the PNDL before the actual launch of the program. 1.2. Run awareness-raising and information campaigns 131. Simply put, an investment program cannot be successful if potential applicants do not know about the opportunity to seek financing. For the PNDL in particular, awareness-raising activities need not be very complex, particularly given that eligible beneficiaries are only public authorities or associations of local governments (i.e., Intercommunity Development Associations). Mass campaigns are not required in this case, but the MRDPA should still try to inform all local authorities about the possibility of applying for PNDL funds. This can be done through targeted messages distributed through 54 official channels, which has been the main awareness-raising channel to date. Some EU- funded programs also organize regional info sessions to present funding opportunities to larger audiences. A similar format could also work for the PNDL, possibly organized in each of the eight planning regions with the help of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), which already have experience with such events for the ROP 2007-2013. To date there have been no similar info sessions for the PNDL. 132. On a related note, efforts aimed at increasing a program’s legitimacy can also result in higher awareness and stronger commitment to follow through with an actual application. While a potential applicant (local government) may be informed of the opportunity, the mayor may decide not to submit an application if he/she does not trust the validity and fairness of the evaluation and selection process. Particularly in the case of state-funded programs, special efforts may be needed to establish and communicate clear and transparent procedures, implemented against a set timetable. By boosting the legitimacy and appeal of programs like the PNDL, the ministry can help ensure that the best possible projects are put forth for consideration. Such a mechanism would also help dismiss perceived concerns about funding allocations based on criteria other than the formally agreed ones. 1.3. Design a pre-application filter for PNDL proposals 133. Pipeline development efforts go beyond awareness raising, involving active engagement and one-on-one exchanges with potential beneficiaries. A recommended practice is to never simply turn down a project proposal, but to have a basic filter in place to sort through eligible and ineligible projects, early on in the process. Applicants, particularly those from small communities with limited resources, should not go through the trouble and expense of putting together a full application that will eventually be deemed as ineligible by the county council or the MRDPA. This is not only inefficient and discouraging for the applicant, it is also over-burdening the pipeline of projects, diverting resources away from high-quality, eligible projects. In addition to explaining program requirements clearly during information sessions and offering the option of an informal opinion on an idea’s eligibility before the application is put together, an easy, automated electronic validation could be made available to all interested applicants (for instance, on the official MRDPA website). Other Member States have experimented with pre- application filters, which would be particularly useful for improving the coordination and leveraging synergies between EU and state-funded investments. 134. Specifically, PNDL applicants should first submit an Expression of Interest (or Letter of Intent), with a few basic data on the proposed project. Based on this initial document, the MRDPA – under the current structure – or the respective County Council (in a decentralized framework) can advise the applicant on whether to pursue PNDL funding further or seek alternative sources. This would reduce workloads at the level of both local authorities and the program management: the former would only submit full applications for projects that may actually be suitable for PNDL funds, while the pipeline of applications would become more narrowly focused on viable proposals. 55 1.4. Appoint Liaison Persons (LPs) to support potential beneficiaries 135. The PNDL should support County Councils to designate a specific liaison person (LP) who can advise local authorities on the types of projects that may be eligible for state budget and/or EU funding. Instead of trying to cover the needs of the entire country through its own staff – currently facing capacity constraints already – the MRDPA can delegate such tasks to County Councils, which can act as “intermediate bodies” and as the interface of the program for local (town and commune) authorities. Of course, this would also require tweaking the current system to prevent any conflicts of interest; specifically, under the status quo County Councils also get financed from the same pool of PNDL funds. A solution mentioned earlier is to allocate a specific pool of funds for county-level projects, which should be evaluated and prioritized only at the MRDPA level; by contrast, the prioritization of local-level projects within a particular county could be kept at the county council level. 136. The LP would be able to act as an advisor to the potential applicant, providing informal guidance on project feasibility, eligibility, and alignment with program and regional-level goals. To be sure, the LP should not be involved in any way in the project’s evaluation, upholding the principle of the so-called Chinese walls (or paper walls) to preserve the process’ confidentiality and fairness. Such contact points exist in multiple other Member States, including Scotland and Wales (United Kingdom), as well as Flanders (Belgium). 28 There is also an opportunity to collaborate closely and rely more on business groups, nonprofit coalitions, and associations of public authorities (e.g., the Association of Romanian Municipalities and the Union of Romanian County Councils). Examples from France and Austria demonstrate that networks of knowledgeable peers can be highly successful in “mediating between different actors and offering support packages comprising domestic and EU funds.” 29 137. RDAs at the regional level can also se rve as sounding boards for local authorities’ ideas and incipient infrastructure development projects. As noted earlier, this option would enable the MRDPA to concentrate its limited staff on the truly strategic, high-level tasks (e.g., programming, overall monitoring, etc.). RDAs, particularly for the urban settlements – with which they collaborate under the ROP – are much closer to the ground and can more easily fulfill the role of actively developing the pipeline of PNDL projects. For example, in the case of the ROP, some RDA representatives have taken on the active role of facilitator by trying to bring multiple local authorities together to define projects spanning multiple jurisdictions and generating truly region-wide effects. 28 “Turning Strategies into Projects: The Implementation of 2007-2013 Structural Funds Programmes,” IQ -Net Thematic Paper 20 (2), European Policies Research Centre, p. 75 . 29 Ibid., p. 76. 56 138. Having clear responsibilities assigned to an LP at the County Council and/or RDA level can also help with a coordinated, integrated, and sustainable implementation process. The issue of sustainability is of special concern, as project proposals are often lacking high-quality assessments of costs and benefits, particularly when it comes to estimating operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Stronger support in the pre- application phase could help ensure that potential beneficiaries consider all relevant aspects of planned investments and prioritize them based on the full picture of expected returns, ensuring that they can continue to maintain a particular investment. 1.5. Organize training sessions to help applicants prepare better projects 139. Finally, it is recommended to provide training to potential beneficiaries, particularly around how to properly fill out the financing proposal and how to prevent pitfalls during implementation. If more applicants prepare complete and correct forms in the pre-application phase, less work will be generated downstream for MRDPA staff to verify the documentation. More substantially, the MRDPA could also promote a set of good practices with respect to the technical solutions and technologies to be deployed. These are now often chosen by designers without further guidance from local authorities, which have neither the capacity, nor the technical skills to know what to ask from designers and other service providers. 30 By training potential applicants early on – which is feasible, given that the “universe” of potential beneficiaries is known and limited, i.e., comprising all local public authorities – the MRDPA could contribute to better project designs and a smoother implementation. 2) Applicants Develop Initial Technical Documentation 140. In the pre-application phase, initial project preparation by local authorities includes the feasibility studies for new investments or the DALI for modernizing existing infrastructure. Why does this matter for project selection? And what could the MRDPA do to improve a process that lies almost entirely in the hands of local authorities? The first question is easier to tackle: a proposal with poor-quality, incomplete technical documentation will not pass the evaluation phase, or may incur significant delays resulting from repeated exchanges between the team of evaluators, local authorities, and designers. Moreover, inadequate technical documentation can create significant problems during the implementation phase – from delays to significant additional (non-eligible) costs. It is well known that in Romania the poor quality of technical documentation for infrastructure projects is a frequent issue experienced by local authorities. 2.1. Avoid contracting design of technical documentations centrally 141. First off, it is not recommended to revert to the solution deployed in the past, which involved financing the development of technical documentation centrally, without 30 See reports prepared under Component 3 of the broader World Bank engagemed with the MRDPA under the Romania Regional Development Program. 57 a direct link to local authorities. Specifically, Government Decision 811/2006 mandated the then Ministry of European Integration (MEI) to finance the preparation of project documentation to be financed from the ROP 2007-2013. These were actually “back-up projects” inherited from the PHARE CES 2004 -2006 program. Several problems emerged from this set-up: technical experts contracted by MEI elaborated the documentation without paying much attention to why the projects had scored poorly in the initial evaluation; also, in 2006, the list of eligible expenditures had not yet been issued for the ROP, so the beneficiaries ended up incurring significant non-eligible expenses during the implementation phase. Moreover, this documentation was generally of poor quality, but beneficiaries had little opportunity to correct it, both because of lack of capacity and lack of time: when they received the technical projects financed by the MEI, they rushed to apply to the recently launched ROP. It is recommended that such situations be avoided in the future. 2.2. Promote improved contracts to hold service providers accountable 142. Indeed, the PNDL explicitly notes that the costs of preparing feasibility studies are not eligible for financing through the program, so local authorities remain in charge of developing this documentation. Still, even when beneficiaries contract technical experts directly, the overall quality of technical documentation tends to be unsatisfactory as a result of lack of proper accountability mechanisms. Under current legislation, designers are only liable in extreme circumstances (e.g., a building collapses as a result of a faulty project). This should be amended to cover errors and poor-quality work, even if discovered after the project is received by beneficiaries. 31 All beneficiaries would benefit from an internal quality control system, but this often hard to achieve in practice. 143. While some designers are poorly trained and often lack time to develop solid technical projects, public authorities also lack the capacity to draft strong contracts and properly verify submitted documentation. This is particularly true in the case of small communities with very limited budgets – the typical PNDL beneficiary has very few employees and cannot afford to hire qualified civil engineers. There are also technical project verifiers, who should be contracted directly by beneficiaries and look out for their best interest, in accordance with currently applicable legislation (Law 10/1995 for quality of construction works). In practice, numerous beneficiaries receive technical documentation already stamped with the seal of approval of a verifier, paid by the designer of the same project. Such situations can be avoided through more rigorous contracts that hold parties accountable for errors at every step of the chain (beneficiaries for failing to abide by law 10 for quality in construction works; technical experts for any clear mistakes in the project; verifiers for approving faulty documentation; engineers for not supervising work progress 31 The World Bank Report on “ROP 2.0: Beneficiary Support Mechanisms for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020” includes a full set of measures needed to hold designers accountable. These largely depend on legislative amendments, so they exceed the MRDPA’s area of direct of direct influence. 58 properly, etc.). Also, it should be mandatory to have a separate contract for the supervisors. 144. The MRDPA should seek to help beneficiaries of PNDL and of other investment programs avoid discrepancies between the technical documentation and the situation on the ground. The solution is to support the introduction of standard contracts. These would be part of the public procurement documentation and help ensure that qualified, professional bidders enter the competition. Good practices would include the following:  A clear stipulation of the designer’s responsibility to deliver a high -quality output : This would include applicable fines and sanctions in the eventuality of clear mistakes that can be attributed to the design team. One requirement could be to have professional insurance for designers, which some beneficiaries are already beginning to request through the contract form. There are existing companies that will provide this type of professional insurance. Over the long-term, insurance schemes are particularly helpful for rewarding competent service providers and penalizing those who deliver inadequate technical documentation. In addition, an independent supervisor can ensure that work is done up to standard.  A complete timeline for every deliverable, including payment terms : Some beneficiaries are already applying a system of payments in tranches, making sure that the designer only receives the last payment when the project is successfully completed. This ensures that technical designers stay close to beneficiaries throughout the implementation phase and collaborate with engineers and construction crews in order to find optimal solutions.  Clear requirements that all property rights over the technical documentation belong to the beneficiary. In some cases where this was not explicit in the contract, designers have refused to allow any changes to the projects, invoking proprietary rights over the delivered content, despite the fact that they had been paid for a particular output. Importantly, these principles apply not only for the pre-feasibility and feasibility stages, but also for the detailed technical design, which is usually developed after the contract is signed and the financing is secured. 2.3. Revise the policy on cost standards 145. Implementation of cost standards for infrastructure is imperfect has posed challenges to beneficiaries. The intentions for deploying the cost standards are praiseworthy as a solution for keeping project costs under control. The problem is that current cost standards are not sufficiently developed and, in some cases (i.e., wastewater systems), they do not exist at all. 32 They also do not reflect updated nominal values (i.e. 32 The MRDPA currently uses instead a rule of thumb whereby cost standards for wastewater systems are roughly 1.5 times the cost standards for water supply systems. 59 values have not been adjusted for inflation since 2010), and it is also unclear if comparisons between project values and cost standards should reflect RON or EUR values. 146. Although the technical solutions included in the legislation on standard costs (particularly for the road infrastructure) are just a recommendation, they are adopted by all applicants. Designers thus choose lower-quality, cheaper, less efficient technologies, which may result in higher long-term costs. In this context, it is challenging to adopt new/greener technologies that may come at a premium cost upfront, but which may be cheaper over the long term (e.g., if one takes life-cycle costing into consideration). 147. Cost standards should be updated, made optional, or waived completely. In the latter scenario, the authorities could use instead a list of reference prices denominated in EUR to make sure that costs are kept under control. In any case, technical solutions proposed should be only indicative and designers/beneficiaries should be properly informed that they may adopt alternative options that are superior in terms of short/long- term costs and quality. The intermediary reports focused on the MRDPA’s portfolio of projects and the dissemination of efficient technical designs (both due on December 26, 2014) expand on these technical observations. 3) Local/County Councils Submit Applications to the MRDPA 148. The application package for the PNDL includes a basic form with simple information about the local authority (i.e., the applicant) and the technical documentation for the proposed project. There is room for improvement in terms of both enhancing the conformity of submitted applications and increasing the clarity of the entire process for applicants. 3.1. Improve conformity of PNDL applications submitted to the MRDPA 149. For the PNDL specifically, a Bank team of technical evaluators has performed a screening of a sample of applications and has developed an inventory of common issues and corresponding solutions. This screening exercise was designed to help the team familiarize itself with the PNDL projects and corresponding technical documentation, and to identify potential issues that may need to be addressed in a future improved project selection model. The box below outlines a number of key issues that applicants to the PNDL should take into consideration when preparing the technical documentation. The recommendations are meant to be practical, allowing on the one hand applicants to develop better technical documentations, and reducing the time required by the MRDPA team to review these documentations (e.g., it may eliminate in some cases the need for requesting clarifications from applicants). 60 Box 2. Recommendations for improving applicants’ technical documentation 1. Type of documentation & annexes  Roads: Choose carefully between the feasibility study (FS) and the DALI. For modernization works of existing infrastructure, always pick the DALI  Water and wastewater: For new projects aimed at building new infrastructure, the FS is required. For existing/ongoing projects (with new investment components), the SF and the technical expertise shall be submitted. For modernization of current infrastructure the DALI shall be prepared  Update specialty studies and technical expertise studies  Include the geotechnical study with proper seal of approval (“verificat la cerința Af”)  If the detailed technical design is available and is submitted, also include the FS/DALI. Also include the project verifiers’ notes, for each specialty  Include all documents needed to prove/establish ownership of new/modernized infrastructure  Include the “urbanism certificate” with all corresponding permits required * 2. Content of documentation  Make sure that the description of the need and opportunity for the investment fulfils the requirements of GD 28/2008 (Annex 2)  Include information of how the project correlates/fits under local/regional/national strategies in the relevant sector  Develop the cost-benefit analysis in accordance with the EU Guide (as part of FS and only for those applications that require FS)  Make explicit the commitment to operate and maintain the project upon completion 3. Local/County Council Decision  Make sure the decision explicitly mentions the co-financing amount  Make sure to include in the decision the key technical-economic indicators 4. Budget  Check that respective expenses are within the GD 363/2010 limits on cost standards  Include sources of financing along wi th the overall budget (“deviz general”) *Note: The urbanism certificate should not be released by the relevant authority without the permits/approvals required for the construction permit (requires amendment to Law 50/1991). 150. To preempt the request for revision of technical documentation, the Checklist in Annex 9 could be sent to PNDL applicants and published on MRDPA website. The checklist includes a number of common issues and mistakes that were identified as part of the evaluation of the 159 technical documentations with a funding decision for 2014. The team will also organize site-visits to discuss directly with the applicants what kind of problems they are facing with applications, their processing and how their technical documentation can be improved. Ultimately, it is hoped that on one hand applicants will be able to improve quality of their proposals, while the staff of the MRDPA dealing with NDPL will enhance their capacity to carry on the task of evaluating and selecting projects for the rest of the projects with completed and submitted technical documentation. 61 3.2. Develop and publish a PNDL Applicant Guide 151. The key instrument for supporting potential beneficiaries in the process of putting together and submitting a financing request is the “Applicant Guide.” Indeed, this serves to orient the applicant throughout the process. In the case of the ROP 2007-2013, the applicant guide includes the following: general overview of the ROP/priority axis/intervention area; applicable rules for the financing application (eligibility and selection criteria, filling out and submitting the documentation, evaluation and selection processes); pre-contracting conditions (e.g., technical documentation, field visit); beneficiary rights and obligations; and annexes (forms, verification checklists, etc.). Additionally, the guide also includes templates of the typical documents that would be required during the implementation phase for applicants who move forward in the process: prefinancing request, reimbursement request, and progress report. For the PNDL, a significant improvement would be to create a similar guide and then distribute it to all local authorities that may become beneficiaries of the program. To reduce costs, the document could be developed only in electronic form; many of the templates to be used for the project (e.g., for reimbursement requests) would need to be filled out digitally, in any case. 152. In addition to clarity and comprehensiveness, the PNDL applicant guide should ensure a predictable framework for the program’s implementation. In this sense, the PNDL should avoid the issues created in 2007-2013 by applicant guides for EU-funded programs, which suffered multiple changes. Rules and standards should be relatively stable across time, at least over the duration of a single application period. If this principle is not followed, it risks creating confusion, delays, and inefficiencies, in addition to an uneven playing field for different applicants. 3.3. Define a reasonable list of eligible expenditures 153. Another key element relevant for this phase refers to eligible and non -eligible expenditures. It is a good idea for programs to adopt a flexible approach, refraining from defining every single item that may or may not be eligible for financing, particularly if there are no other superseding regulations (e.g., EU-level requirements on what can be expensed). 154. In Romania, Government Decision 28/2008 already defines all the major categories of expenses that can be incurred by an infrastructure project. EU structural funds, particularly the ROP 2007-2013, have demonstrated the risk of “over-regulating” through additional provisions (e.g., in the ROP’s case, a minister’s ord er) what counts as eligible/non-eligible expenditures. For instance: chairs in classrooms upgraded under the ROP are not eligible for ROP support, but tables, computers, maps, and other equipment are covered; alleys and benches in front of health centers for elderly people are other ineligible expenses, as are a range of permits and authorizations. These items, while clearly related to the financed investment, have had be paid out of pocket by beneficiaries because they were specifically included in the Order of Eligible Expenditures. 62 155. Because the PNDL is in its entirety a state-budget-funded program, with money coming essentially from the same source, there is no reason to over-regulate beyond GD 28/2008. Currently, the methodological norms specify a list of non-eligible expenditures (article 8 (3)), including feasibility studies, specialty studies, technical assistance, taxes, etc. The list, as it stands, is clearly a better option than what was deployed under the ROP 2007- 2013, which defined what can be financed, excluding by default anything that was not specifically mentioned in the Order of Eligible Expenditures. In other words, it is better to define what does not qualify for reimbursement, as currently under the PNDL. It may still be worth however to look at the list of non-eligible expenditures and decide whether it would warrant an extension. 3.4. Establish a permanent helpdesk 156. Establishing a helpdesk function is critical for ensuring a smooth application process. Given the MRDPA’s limited capacity, it is important to not over-burden DG RDI staff with questions and requests from applicants. Some EU-funded programs have chosen to allocate a limited number of staff to a helpdesk unit, which is available at all times to clarity any applicant concerns that may arise. The PNDL should consider adopting this good practice particularly for the application phase, at least as a pilot initiative at first. 157. Relatively cost efficient solutions exist to communicate with applicants through online tracking platforms. For instance, a simple portal could be developed for local authorities to access for checking the status of their PNDL application. The same portal used to track the application progress should provide information on how long each stage is supposed to take, when its completion can be expected, potential causes for delays, and what, if any, further clarifications are needed. It would also be useful to publish real-time information to the general public on the list of projects that are waiting to be contracted and on those that have been contracted. 3.5. Clarify conditions for submission of applications directly to MRDPA 158. The current PNDL framework notes that applicants may submit applications directly to the MRDPA under “special circumstances.” The law leaves room for interpretation regarding “special circumstances” in which a local authority may bypass the corresponding county council and submit the documentation directly to the Ministry. This alternative was presumably introduced to allow local authorities that have divergent positions (politically) from a County Council to apply directly to the MRDPA. But this runs the risk of introducing double standards. All applicants should go through the same process: if the ministry does not think that county councils can treat all applications equally, then it should centralize all submissions to ensure a level playing field, along with measures to increase the transparency of the process. An appeal system may be considered, to enable applicants to contest certain decisions. 63 4) The MRDPA Evaluates, Selects, and Prioritizes Proposals 159. Strictly based on the current methodological norms in force, the PNDL leaves room for improvement, particularly with respect to clarity and transparency. Because each county council puts together its own list of proposals, in accordance with its prioritization criterion/criteria of choice, it is unclear why some proposals get financed instead of others. It is equally vague how the MRDPA puts together the final list of approved projects based on the proposals received from county councils, as well as its “own analyses.” Available data suggest that the MRDPA mainly caries out a basic conformity and eligibility check to make sure that financing the projects proposed would not violate any laws (e.g., on the standard costs, on the allocated budget for implementation, etc.). 160. The actual triage of proposed projects can be done in a multiple-step process, as detailed in the grid presented in Annex 7, which includes a mechanism for matching investment projects with appropriate funding sources. Figure 16. Scheme for Triage of Technical Documentation Is the project recommended for financing? • Full pool of applications • Basic criteria applied for screening out projects that are not recommended for financing • Initial decision on whether a particular project proposal should move forward YES NO Could the project be financed from EU Funds? • Pool of “financeable” applications Project is not recommended for financing (neither EU, • If a project fits the eligibility criteria of particular EU nor PNDL funds) programs, it is recommended to pursue financing through those instruments YES NO Which EU program could Could the project be financed through the state-funded PNDL? finance the intervention? • Conformity (technical documentation fulfills GD 28/2008 requirements) For example: • Eligibility (project objectives/activities are aligned with PNDL requirements) • Roads that connect to TEN- T network  Regional YES NO Operational Programme Is the project a priority? What adjustments would be (further) • Water supply/sewage needed to the proposal to make it systems for localities • Prioritization criteria* developed • Selection model applied (e.g., “financeable” under the PNDL? between 2,000-10,000  National Rural scoring) • Conformity (e.g., permits, etc.) Development Programme • Eligibility (e.g., objectives, activities) *Note: Full prioritization model is • Technical aspects (e.g., omissions in presented in a separate chapter the design, etc.) 64 4.1. Exclude projects that are not recommended for any financing 161. First, the assessment process tries to determine the basic need for a project, i.e., whether a project should be financed at all. This does not propose to set overly restrictive eligibility criteria. The purpose is rather to ensure that limited funds be directed to projects that can indeed help achieve a number of set targets. In the case of water and wastewater projects, the Regional Waster Masterplans indicate that the focus should be on agglomerations or clusters of over 2,000 p.e. for wastewater projects, and localities of over 50 p.e. in the case of water projects. In the case of county and communal roads, given the need for modernization and rehabilitation of existent road links, no new road links should be funded, with the exception of bypasses. As explained above in the first section of this chapter, this initial cut can be done on the basis of an initial Expression of Interest submitted by an interested local authority before developing a full-fledged application. 4.2. Decide whether proposed projects are eligible for EU funding 162. Second, the selection model seeks to determine whether the proposed project may be eligible for EU funding, which is typically preferable given the more favorable financing conditions. Only the Managing Authority for the respective Operational Programme can decide whether the project is ultimately eligible or not, but applicants should be directed and encouraged to take this route before applying for PNDL support. 163. A number of basic criteria will be taken into consideration to assess the project fit with Operational Programmes that are now in draft form for 2014-2020. In the case of county roads, one major criteria of fit with the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 is whether the county road actually connects to the TEN-T Network. In the case of communal roads, a focus is on smaller projects (roads of less than 5km), with bigger projects recommended for funding from the PNDR. In the case of water and wastewater projects, a first check will be to determine whether the project is on the list of priority projects for the Large Infrastructure Operational Programme 2014-2020. If so, it will be recommended for funding under this operational program. If the project is included in the Regional Water Masterplan, but is not on the list of priority projects for the Large Infrastructure Operational Programme 2014-2020, it will be recommended for financing under the PNDR. 4.3. Perform administrative check and technical & financial evaluation 164. The third step involves a more detailed assessment of the quality of the technical documentation provided . Only projects that are assessed as generally financeable and at the same time are considered to be non-eligible for EU funding will make it to this stage. This includes two separate phases, as detailed below: (i) an administrative and conformity check and (ii) a technical and financial evaluation of the submitted project. 165. Currently, the MRDPA only performs a basic conformity and eligibility check on submitted proposals for PNDL financing, based on a form that is not available to applicants. This checklist should be (i) improved to reflect all legal requirements and the PNDL eligibility criteria and (ii) made publicly available so that applicants so that they start 65 working on ensuring that their proposals are complete and in line with current legal provisions. Annex 9 of this report contains an updated conformity checklist to help DG RDI improve the verification process. The recommendations are not aimed at improving the technical quality of documentation (e.g., choosing better/cheaper technical solutions, etc.), but merely refer to good practices for ensuring the full administrative conformity of proposals submitted. 166. In addition, the PNDL should include a technical and financial evaluation (TFE) of proposed projects that are deemed to be eligible for funding. Projects that are not in full conformity with program rules should not make it to the TFE phase. EU-funded programs like the ROP and the PNDR provide good examples of what the TFE should consist of, as detailed in Annexes C and D. Evaluation grids should be published along with Applicant Guides to ensure that there is full transparency regarding how proposed projects are reviewed. Importantly, this step in the process can be iterative: evaluators should ask for clarifications and applicants – with the help of their consultants and designers – should be allowed the opportunity to improve the submitted documentation. A maximum number of clarification rounds can be set to two, as is typical for the EU-funded programs. 167. Given the timeline of the PNDL in a given year, it would make sense to explore engaging external consultants to carry out the eligibility check and technical and financial evaluation. Specifically, after the state budget law is passed each year, the PNDL gets a total budget and can begin reaching out to county councils for project proposals. This means that all proposals come in at the same time, from across the country, putting a significant strain on the internal capacity of the MRDPA to process requests in a timely fashion. For a few weeks at a time, the ministry could hire a set of external evaluators to screen financing requests and work with pre-approved beneficiaries to improve submitted proposals. 4.4. Prioritize projects based on clear, objective, and transparent criteria 168. The next chapter details a full model for the prioritization of projects within each key sector financed by the PNDL – i.e., roads, water and wastewater systems, and social infrastructure. At this point, it suffices to reemphasize that adopting a clear and transparent prioritization system would be a marked improvement over the status quo. As described in Chapter II, the current PNDL is very vague in this respect, indicating that county councils prioritizing investments in their respective jurisdiction are to us e “at least one” of the following criteria: signing date of the goods/work/service contract, as applicable; physical status (% complete); population benefitting from the investment; and the local budget’s percentage of co-financing. It is unclear which of the four criteria are deployed and whether higher or smaller values are better (i.e., equivalent to a higher priority). Additionally, there are no weights between the different criteria. 4.5. Set up a mechanism for field visits before contracting 169. Finally, projects that are eligible and deemed a priority for a particular funding cycle should move forward to the contracting phase. For particularly large and/or complex 66 projects, as evidenced by the documentation submitted as part of the application, the MRDPA should conduct field visits to check the conditions on the ground for completing proposed works. This can also be done on a random sampling basis. The idea is not only to sanction applicants whose documents do not reflect the reality on the ground, but also to assist them by drawing attention to particular technical and financial aspects. To maintain the objectivity of the process and also keeping in mind the limited internal resources at the MRDPA level, this phase could also be carried out with the help of external evaluators. 170. In case the application process moves to a fully electronic platform, as recommended earlier, field visits would also be needed to verify the accuracy of submitted data versus hard copy documents. This depends, of course, on the capacity of the system to handle a fully electronic process. Some local authorities in rural areas – the main targets of PNDL – may not have access to required resources, so at least at a basic level the possibility of applying through the more traditional channels should be kept open. By the end of 2016, Romania is required to ensure electronic submissions for EU-funded projects; if the system functions properly, it should also be expanded to the PNDL. 5) The MRDPA and Beneficiaries Sign the Contracts a 171. The contracting process between the Ministry and beneficiaries is unclear and requires streamlining. There should be full transparency regarding the order in which contracts are signed. Any unforeseen delays should be communicated to the future beneficiaries to avoid situations whereby local authorities set aside funds or resources in anticipation of an imminent approval. 172. Article 10 of GEO 28/2013 notes that contracts have to be signed within 30 days of the publishing date of the Minister’s Order regarding the list of projects approved for financing. Setting such a tight standard for signing may not only lead to a compromise of technical and safety standards, but would normally require that other, subservient service level agreement standards be set (e.g., standards for time to review and to process). Also, data show that such deadlines do not hold in practice, particularly if several iterations must take place between the MRDPA’s technical experts and local authorities before the documentation is considered complete and acceptable. 5.1. Introduce multi-year budgeting and programming 173. The figure below makes the point that for new PNDL projects the timeline construction can only begin in late fall, when the weather typically becomes too cold to continue the works. This is because of multiple reasons. For one, the amount available for PNDL projects is communicated late to the Local Councils / Counties Councils. In consequence, only projects with technical documentation that is already complete are usually financed, i.e., not necessary the most important investments for those respective communities. 67 Figure 17. Typical timeline for a new PNDL project 174. Multi-year budgeting has been a long-time desideratum in the Romanian context. It would allow for carrying out strategic investments over several years, particularly given the long delays typically incurred in public procurement processes. As the figure above demonstrates, there is little that a new project proposal can accomplish in a single calendar year. The relatively small average value of PNDL project compared to an EU-funded investment also suggests that beneficiaries of state-budget-funded projects may be forced to choose smaller, less impactful investments that they can expect to complete in a shorter period of time. 175. In terms of contracting per se, multi-year contracts are needed for projects that cannot be completed within a single year. Put differently, the beneficiary of an approved project should not have to sign multiple contracts with the MRDPA, as currently implied by the PNDL’s methodological norms, which mention “annual financing contracts” (Article 16). This is important not only as a solution for reducing bureaucracy and duplication, but also as a mechanism for ensuring predictable and stable year-to-year funding. In field interviews, local authorities note that they have absolutely no visibility into whether they will receive funding for the coming year and at what level. 68 176. The lack of multi-year budgeting and programming has been a key cause of the current situation, whereby thousands of unfinished projects are located around the country. With every change in government, some works were left incomplete, while new ones were started, without an explicit objective reason for such decisions. A multi-year PNDL may depend on broader legislative changes, which will be explored during the subsequent phases of the current assignment and through the ongoing World Bank Public Investment Management technical advisory with the Ministry of Finance. 5.2. Conduct post-contracting training with PNDL beneficiaries 177. A highly recommended practice at this stage in the process is to hold hands -on training sessions with future beneficiaries. Compared to earlier in the project cycle (such as during the pre-application period), the universe of participants to such workshops is more limited and better defined – i.e., includes only the local authorities that are actual beneficiaries of the PNDL in a given year. The experience of EU-funded programs in Romania and elsewhere suggests that targeted trainings before the implementation phase begins are very valuable. In local or regional sessions, MRDPA representatives or appointed experts can provide hands-on guidance to program beneficiaries regarding key topics like: public procurement; project management; good practices in contracting service providers (including through FIDIC contracts, where feasible); PNDL-specific procedures, such as progress reports, reimbursement requests, monitoring field visits, etc. This upfront preparation can prevent many of the potential issues from arising during the implementation phase and may also contribute to knowledge sharing among past and future beneficiaries of the program. 6) Beneficiaries Begin Project Implementation 178. As noted earlier in Chapter II, the exact steps of the implementation process will depend on whether the project is a new or ongoing investment. In the former case, the progression is obviously more complicated and requires public procurement procedures for the development of the detailed technical design and for the actual construction works. For EU-funded programs, there are usually separate units within the Intermediate Bodies and the Managing Authority that focus solely on the verification of public procurement procedures. That system is considered to be too complicated for the PNDL, which involves smaller sums of money. There are, in any case, multiple central-level institutions that verify how public procurement procedures take place –the Unit for the Coordination and Verification of Public Procurement (UCVPP), the National Authority for Regulating and Monitoring Public Procurement (NARMPP), the National Council for Resolving Disputes (NCRD), and the Court of Accounts, which verifies all public spending. This system is already complex and introducing another layer of verifications at the County Council and/or the MRDPA level should be avoided. 69 6.1. Strengthen verifications of reimbursement requests 179. Proper monitoring is needed to verify the reimbursement requests submitted by beneficiaries. Beneficiaries now request funds directly from the MRDPA, a simpler process than before, when they had to first send the requests to county councils. County council staff interviewed, however, reports that they would like to remain involved to be able to coordinate and monitor the implementation process in their respective jurisdiction, as required by the PNDL implementation norms. Once it approves the requests received, the Ministry channels the funds – within the set annual limits and based on the proofs/documents received (“situații de lucrări”) – directly to beneficiaries. Finally, beneficiaries send back to the MRDPA the proof of payment of service providers (i.e., showing that the funds received were used for the intended purpose). 180. The main monitoring mechanism is currently based on the role of the engineer/work supervisor (“diriginte de șantier”), who has the full legal responsibility to verify work progress. For EU-funded programs, this monitoring function is also carried out by Intermediate Bodies (e.g., Regional Development Agencies) and Managing Authorities and the National Audit Authority, on a sampling basis. It is true, however, that PNDL projects are typically much smaller, so caution is needed with respect to recommending a much more complicated system than the current one. As for the PNDL, it is clear that the monitoring function could not be accomplished solely by the MRDPA at the central level, for the simple reason of lack of capacity and high costs of sending monitoring missions throughout the country. At the most, the MRDPA can verify a carefully selected sample of projects, focusing on the most complex and expensive investments. As noted in the law, the Ministry can appoint representatives who, together with counterparts from the State Inspectorate for Constructions, verify the accuracy of reported data and compare it to the reality on the ground. 181. In addition, a solution for proper monitoring is to have specific units within county councils that can carry out this function on a continuous basis. The advantage would be that these authorities are close to the ground and can more easily supervise work progress and also verify the accuracy of submitted expenses. This step would precede the beneficiaries sending reimbursement requests to the MRDPA. In other words, the chain of actions can be adjusted as follows: (i) a beneficiary submits to the respective county council the report on the work performed, including reimbursement requests, based on a simple, standard template (the one currently defined through the PNDL methodological norms is sufficiently clear); (ii) the county council verifies the accuracy of the reports and of the expenses, approves/amends it with the local beneficiary; (iii) the MRDPA receives the report and, based on the sampling methodology, can decide whether to subject it to further verification or clear it for reimbursement. Of course, this system would not apply in the case of county council projects (for obvious reasons related to conflicts of interest); in those situations, the monitoring would have to be done by the MRDPA. 182. An alternative, simpler solution is to hire independent auditors to assess the expenses made and the accuracy of reimbursement requests. This has the advantage of relying on neutral parties that are completely outside the decision-making chain related to 70 PNDL projects. It would also not require expanding the government apparatus at the county council level. Also, EU-funded projects employ such resources to help with certifying expenses, so it would not be a new practice in Romania. As noted in the World Bank report on the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, the role and functions of auditors require several improvements in the Romanian context: first, auditors should go beyond a simple desk review of accounting documents, but thoroughly evaluate every reimbursement request, including procurement procedures that have led to particular expenses; equally important, in other countries, a best practice is to require these actors to also perform technical audits, which would act as an additional filter verifying the quality of the technical documentation and construction works performed. 6.2. Enhance overall monitoring systems 183. As noted earlier in Chapter II, PNDL beneficiaries are responsible for monitoring work progress and reporting updates to county councils and the MRDPA. Local beneficiaries are supposed to send reports to county councils, which further send to the MRDPA a consolidated quarterly update on the progress of financed investments. Currently, the system is based on simple desk reviews of submitted documents, as there are no continuous mechanisms for verifying the works on the ground. This is critical in terms of providing a constant flow of information regarding how projects are advancing, how much funds they would require at different stages in their implementation, where delays are accumulating and why, etc. A proper monitoring is the first step in enabling the MRDPA to correct issues promptly as they develop during the project implementation phase. 184. The challenges – and solutions – are similar to the ones described above. For its part, the MRDPA should continue to have the overall program monitoring role, with specific project monitoring visits scheduled based on a defined methodology (e.g., as mentioned earlier, larger/more complex projects should be more carefully scrutinized). In addition, the MRDPA could rely on a more active involvement by county council representatives, as well as on independent auditors. It is highly recommended to implement a standard electronic reporting system, easily accessible by all local authorities, who should be incentivized to gradually move away from hard-copy report submissions. This would enable faster processing and real-time monitoring of progress. 7) Projects Are Completed 185. The PNDL currently includes no institutionalized mechanisms for the post- implementation phase, which would involve tracking the project upon completion. There are no performance indicators and no clear procedures for following up with local beneficiaries once investments are finished. The only formal exchange happens when the warranty period expires, when the local authority again sends a copy of the documentation (“procesul verbal de recepție final”) to the MRDPA. There are two major shortcomings resulting from this: first, there is no rigorous ex-post monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of 71 impact (did the financed investments pay off, i.e., reach their objectives?); second, lessons learned in implementation are not passed on from one beneficiary to the other, as there is no institutionalized knowledge sharing. 7.1. Establish an ex-post M&E system with clear performance indicators 186. The first step in establishing a proper M&E system for the post-implementation phase is to define and agree on a set of performance indicators for each financed project. Based on Romania’s experience with EU funds, PNDL applicants should be encouraged to select from a pre-defined list, customized based on type of investment, which would be easy to implement particularly through an e-application form. At a minimum, chosen indicators should abide by the “SMART” set of criteria: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-oriented. An electronic application system would not allow users to submit a financing proposal with indicators beyond the pre-defined set. As an alternative, applicants could be free to choose their own targets, but evaluators should be allowed and instructed to correct these based on the principles enunciated above. These solutions would avoid instances of beneficiaries over-promising on the impact of their projects and would also save time when preparing the monitoring reports. 187. There is also a need to continue monitoring visits in the field for a number of years after the completion of the investment. Again, this can be done with the support of county councils or independent auditors. The purpose is to see how the project is performing, if the indicators have been reached, and if there are any issues worth signaling in the operations and maintenance procedures. 188. Last but not least, the reporting system applicable to the implementation phase should be expanded to cover the post-implementation stage. The purpose is not to generate excessive bureaucracy, but a yearly report for 3-5 years upon the investment’s completion can add very relevant data regarding how the project is performing in the long term. For instance, it can show whether the quality of the works was done at the agreed standards based on how the infrastructure is holding up. It can also reveal if a sufficient number of people connect to a new water/wastewater system, or if there is no basis to guarantee the new infrastructure’s long-term sustainability. 7.2. Implement knowledge-sharing mechanisms 189. Beneficiaries (“program graduates”) who have completed PNDL investments should be enabled to share lessons learned with other local/county authorities . Some of them have many finalized investments in their portfolio, others are less experienced, but they all could contribute to the PND L’s improvement by effectively closing the feedback loop and feeding back their accumulated insights into how new projects in the pipeline are implemented. 190. Currently, as noted above, once a project is complete, PNDL “graduates” have very limited interactions with the MRDPA on the topic of their completed investments. There is no institutionalized, effective way of collecting their suggestions for improving the 72 program or for ensuring smoother project implementation. To be sure, knowledge sharing among beneficiaries is still happening in the absence of formal mechanisms, but on an ad- hoc basis only and with suboptimal results, as not all knowledge exchanged currently is useful. As demonstrated by what happened with the drafting of public procurement documentation in the past, beneficiaries copied mistakes from one another and, as a consequence, incurred painful corrections under EU-funded projects. This goes to the point that knowledge among peers can be a simple, but very powerful, valuable tool if implemented correctly – i.e., properly collected, organized, verified, and distributed. 191. There are multiple possibilities for leveraging program graduates and facilitating knowledge exchange. For instance, one simple option is to add to the ex-post monitoring reports submitted by beneficiaries (per the previous recommendation) a number of questions asking for suggestions for future beneficiaries. It should be easy to receive and collect this feedback at the level of each county in electronic form, and then send it to the MRDPA for further processing and analysis. Another option is to host in-person workshops with successful graduates acting as trainers and mentors for new beneficiaries. In some regions, successful EU-funded projects are featured in promotional materials and project managers are sometimes asked to give talks to various audiences, but this practice is not institutionalized. Specifically, graduates could lead parts of the sessions organized upon contracting of new projects. 192. In addition, graduates could play a key role in developing a range of information and communication technology (ICT) solutions for knowledge management and sharing. The possibilities under this heading are nearly endless, but the guiding principles should be ease of input and ease of access. Whether it is a simple online forum with postings for problems encountered and approved solutions, or a more elaborate search catalogue based on key topics (e.g., “public procurement,” “feasibility studies,” etc.), it will only be successful if users do not spend a lot of time figuring out how to use the platform. To borrow a well-known example from this field, Google devised the world’s most popular search engine by simplifying everything, down to a single button. This is why it is important to keep testing, piloting, and refining ICT solutions based on users’ feedback to reduce the risk of developing a really complex tool used by only a few ROP graduates and beneficiaries. 193. Finally, for it to be effective, knowledge sharing requires careful quality control to avoid situations where the shared information is either wrong or would expose project beneficiaries to additional risks. It is useful to caveat all knowledge exchange initiatives with the note that advice from PNDL graduates should always be adapted to the specific circumstances of a project and, naturally, what has worked for one beneficiary may not be appropriate for another. 73 Chapter V: Proposed Prioritization Criteria for Enhanced Selection of PNDL Projects 194. The way PNDL projects are currently prioritized was described in more detail in Chapter II, which noted that the method currently has a number of positive features. Specifically, the status quo system is simple, involves relatively little bureaucracy, allows access to funding for almost every local administration, and is quite fast. To the extent possible, these strong points should be reinforced going forward. 195. At the same time, this method has a number of downsides. For one, the current prioritization criteria do not properly quantify actual need. For example, for the 2014 financial exercise, every county in Romania initially got allocated about the same amount of money (roughly RON 22-25 million) regardless of actual need, the availability of own resources to carry on such investments, or capacity to absorb funds from the central government. The prioritization itself is done by the county council, including for projects undertaken by the county councils themselves (e.g., county roads), which can lead to a situation where county authorities favor their own projects over the projects of localities in their respective jurisdictions. Also, the current prioritization criteria do not take key elements into consideration, such as: impact (the investments with the highest expected impact should be preferred over those with lower impact); financial sustainability (i.e., capacity to cover operation and maintenance costs once the investment is finalized); or national targets and priorities (e.g., focusing investments in wastewater only in localities with more than 2,000 people equivalent). 196. Obviously, almost every investment program leaves room for improvement. The trick in carrying out those improvements lies, however, in ensuring that the good elements of the program are kept, while the bad ones are addressed. A fundamental precondition for identifying those good and bad elements is the identification of the key elements needed for an efficient prioritization mechanism. 197. At the very least, an efficient prioritization mechanism, or rather a function al project selection model, should have the following elements at its core:  A strategy that identifies the key issues that should be addressed.  Individual operational programs that aim to target the identified needs.  A clear implementation timeline for those operational programs.  A clear budget for the implementation of the programs.  A list of priorities and projects that help achieve program goals.  Clear prioritization criteria for the selection of those projects that can have the highest impact.  Performance indicators to measure the actual impact and performance of the selected and implemented projects. In what follows, these key elements will be discussed in more detail. 74 Core Elements of Optimal Prioritization The Strategy 198. The key strategic document that can guide PNDL investments in the future is the Territorial Development Strategy of Romania (SDTR). At the moment of the writing of this report, the SDTR was still in draft form, but the document provides key strategic guidelines for how PNDL investments could be done in the future. Thus:  the development of connective infrastructure, such as county roads, should aim to enable as many people as possible easier access to opportunities (e.g. , jobs, education, healthcare, culture), and to enable firms easier access to a larger labor pool.  people in all regions should have easy access to basic infrastructure such as water, wastewater, educational facilities, health facilities, etc. to ensure that everybody in the country is offered, to the extent possible, the same start in life. These key strategic guidelines will be factored into the proposed prioritization criteria for PNDL investments. 199. Going from the national to the next lower level, Regional Development Plans (RDPs) guide development for seven-year cycles (e.g., 2007-2013, 2014-2020, etc.) for each of Romania’s eight regions. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) prepare RDPs as a foundation for accessing EU funds under the Regional Operational Programme (ROP). The RDPs are insular in their approach, as they are specifically designed for the accession of structural funds. Even when the plans themselves go beyond the scope of what can be funded through the ROP there is no administrative tier that could take such regional projects on. The RDAs themselves function as NGOs of public utility and are intermediate bodies between the Managing Authority of the ROP and beneficiaries. The RDAs also do not assume, according to Law 151/1998 and Law 315/2004 on regional development, which laid the basis of their existence, any spatial planning attributions. 200. While the RDPs are not normative in the absence of a formal regional administrative tier for Romania, the PNDL should take into account regional priorities as defined in these documents. This requires close coordination between the MRDPA and the RDAs – which happens in any case as part of the ROP chain, where the RDAs act as the interface with beneficiaries. The Program 201. The PNDL is not a full-fledged Operational Program, but includes key objectives and a list of intervention areas. Thus, one of the key objectives of the PNDL is to provide a basic package of services for rural localities (such as communal roads, water, wastewater, sanitation, educational facilities, health facilities, public markets) to help narrow the development gap relative to urban areas. Also, public investments such as the development of county roads should contribute to the sustainable and balanced development of Romania. The PNDL is now structured around three sub-programs: (1) the modernization of Romanian villages; (2) the urban regeneration of municipalities and 75 towns; and (3) the development of county-level infrastructure. The largest shares of investments carried out in 2014 focused on county and communal roads (around 50% of allocated funds) and water and wastewater infrastructure (around 50% of allocated funds). The Timeline 202. Currently, the PNDL is a year-to-year investment program. This means that the PNDL budget is approved by the Ministry of Finance every year and, based on available funds, money is provided to beneficiaries (primarily county councils and local authorities) for the continuation of ongoing projects or for starting new projects. This approach has a number of serious drawbacks. For one, since funding is only guaranteed on a year-to-year basis, an investment project may receive funding in one year and receive no funding in the next. Thus, Romania can end up in a situation where many projects throughout the country are started and remain unfinished for long periods of time – leading to the deterioration and depreciation of the ongoing investments. Obviously, this is a waste of public money. Second, because funding is only guaranteed for one year, most beneficiaries focus on small and usually less impactful projects (e.g., short links in a county road, small water systems, etc.). As a point of comparison, the average length of a county road financed under the Regional Operational Programme is 24 Km, while the average length of a PNDL financed county road is 11 Km (see also Figure 10 for a visual comparison). Similarly, rural infrastructure projects financed through the PNDR have an average value that is almost three times as high as that of a similar PNDL project. Last but not least, year-to-year financing prohibits proper long-term integrated planning and correlation of investments within and across investment programs. 203. Ideally, the PNDL should be a multi-annual program that follows the EU programming cycles. This will not only ensure a more rigorous approach and the possibility to finance more impactful projects, but it will also allow better coordination and harmonization of all operational and investment programs – i.e., operational programs financing similar investments could draw on a joint strategy and will look to contribute toward the same goals. The Budget 204. A clear budget is the simplest and most effective tool for proper prioritization. When a local/county/national authority knows how much money it has to spend, it is also in a better position to decide the limited number of projects that it can actually finance with the limited funds it has at its disposal. This also forces a more rigorous selection of projects to ensure that what is funded will garner the highest possible impact. Obviously, the budget should ideally be multi-annual to go hand-in-hand with the multi-annual programming recommended above. A multi-annual budget also enables a better financial planning and helps improve inter-annual linkages, as the budget execution in one year affects the the plan for the next year. The experience with EU funded investment programs indicates that the bulk of a multi-annual budget gets spent towards the end of a programming period. 76 205. The PNDL budget for 2014 was RON 1.5 billion or around EUR 340 million. If the PNDL would follow the EU programming cycle, then a multi-annual budget for the 2014- 2020 programming period could be somewhere around EUR 2.4 billion. Of course, the actual size of such a multi-annual budget cannot be decided solely by the MRDPA itself, but has to be part of a discussion at the government level around national priorities and programs that can help achieve those priorities. The Priorities 206. With a budget allocated, the next task is to determine what priorities and projects should be financed. This is the task of the managing authority for the respective operational program. For 2014, as noted earlier, around 50% of PNDL funds have been allocated for county and communal roads, and around 50% for water and wastewater projects. In the case of the PNDR 2007-2013, the estimated split between different types of projects has been roughly: 40% for communal roads; 40% for water and wastewater projects; and around 20% for social infrastructure projects. The split per priorities and the types of projects eligible for financing should be decided at the start of an operational program. This requires proper planning and it makes sense primarily for a multi-annual program. The First Step to Proper Prioritization: Setting a Multi-Annual Budget 207. The characteristic of most State funded investments programs in Romania is that they never finish. Even when clear targets are set, these programs tend to drag on for years, with spikes of funding provided in one year, and no or little funding provided in other years. Consequently, whenever a spike of funding is available, lots of projects are started, without a clear idea when the projects will actually be finished. 208. A clear budget is the best tool for proper prioritization. Knowing how much you can afford to spend on needed public investments forces you to decide what are your key priorities. Inevitably, a budget cannot be thought on a year-to-year basis, because an investment program usually cannot be finalized in one year. 209. Multi-annual budgeting thus becomes paramount. Especially for a program like the PNDL, which has now taken on a roster of some 3,900 projects, it is important to decide what budget can reasonably be counted on to finish (at least some of) the started projects in a given timeline. 210. This requires of course that a clear implementation time-line be set. In the case of Romania, as well as all the other EU Member Countries, this task comes relatively easy. Ideally, all investment programs should be correlated and coordinated, and given that EU programs (which have the most generous budget allocation in Romania) follow a clear implementation time-line, the PNDL should be synchronized with the EU cycle. This basically means that planning and budgeting for the PNDL should be thought around the 2014-2020 programming period. 77 211. Setting an actual value for the PNDL budget is not an easy. This usually involves a complicated political process and requires consultations with multiple stakeholders involved. It is ultimately the task of the Government what its key priorities are for a certain period and to work with the Ministry of Public Finance to determine what funds can be allocated for these priorities. 212. Assuming that Romania’s budget will continue to grow in coming years, the initial value of the PNDL budget can be taken as a starting point. In 2014, the PNDL got an initial allocation of around 1.5 billion RON. Assuming that a similar allocation can be provided in the coming years, and adjusting for inflation and a modest economic growth (i.e. assuming a 5% budget increase every year), a reasonable multi-annual budget could look as follows: Table 4. Proposed PNDL Budget allocation for 2014-2020 (in mil. RON) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1,591 1,671 1,754 1,842 1,934 2,031 2,132 213. The total multi-annual budget for the PNDL will thus amount to around 13 billion RON, or around 2.9 billion Euro. Knowing this value alone can go a long way in helping clean the current project portfolio. Right now, the PNDL has a list of 3,952 projects it plans to finance. The total estimated value for these projects (not all projects have an assigned value as of yet) is somewhere around 22 billion RON – 70% more than the 13 billion proposed above. Consequently, one could assume that at least 70% of the projects committed to through the PNDL right now could not be finalized within a reasonable time- line. Moreover, if funding will not be focused on a number of clear priority projects, it is likely that the majority of those projects will not be finalized by 2020. The Second Step to Proper Prioritization: Setting Clear Priorities 214. Once a budget is allocated, it is important to identify the priorities this budget will fund. In the case of the PNDL, the priorities are more or less know: 1) county roads; 2) communal roads; 3) water and wastewater; 4) social infrastructure. What is less clear however is a hierarchy of needs – i.e. which of the above priorities should receive more funding. In what follows, we will discuss three scenarios for allocating funds according to priorities. The Local Priorities Scenario 215. Currently, the PNDL receives projects on an on-going basis, without a clear hierarchy of needs. In essence, the PNDL sets the type of investments it will fund, but the actual allocation by priority is done, de facto, based on the type of technical documentation received from the local level. If more technical documentations are received for a particular type of project, more funding will go for that project. As can be seen in the table below, the project pool with the largest value is communal roads. This has happened less as a result of program engineering and more out of inertia – communal road 78 projects are relatively easy to design and implement, and many local authorities prepare such projects. Table 5. How priorities are currently split under the PNDL Priority Share in PNDL Program County Roads 14% Communal Roads 45% Water and Wastewater 35% Social Infrastructure 6% 216. Thus, the level of funding allocated to individual priorities is decided by stakeholders at the local level. In essence, this is not necessarily a bad way of doing things – local/county authorities know best what their needs are. But, it is not an ideal scenario either. Since national funds are allocated for local investments, the MRDPA should allocate funds strategically based on actual needs. Local/county authorities have their own budgets that they can use for local infrastructure investments, so the MRDPA can direct its funds towards reaching a set of strategic national objectives. 217. The table below indicates how the PNDL budget could be split if the current allocation would be taken into consideration: Table 6. Proposed allocation of PNDL budget (in mil. Euro) - the Local Priorities Scenario (in mil. Euro) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL Sub-programmes 353.6 371.3 389.9 409.4 429.8 451.3 473.9 2,879.2 County roads 49.5 52.0 54.6 57.3 60.2 63.2 66.3 403.1 Local/communal roads 159.1 167.1 175.4 184.2 193.4 203.1 213.2 1,295.6 Water and waste water 123.8 130.0 136.5 143.3 150.4 158.0 165.9 1,007.7 Social infrastructure 21.2 22.3 23.4 24.6 25.8 27.1 28.4 172.8 The EU Priorities Scenario 218. An overwhelming share of public infrastructure investments in Romania is now being done with EU funds. EU funded programs follow clear objectives and priorities, and they can provide a clue to how State funded programs could be organized. In essence, looking at how similar investments have received budget allocations from various EU funded programs can provide a blueprint for how the PNDL could allocate its budget by priorities – using thus the principle of additionality with EU-funded programs. 219. The draft programmatic document sent to the European Commission proposed the following budget allocation as of December 2014: 79 Table 7. EU funds allocation (in Euro) by operational program priorities LI OP AP3 (water and wastewater) 2.574.000.000 (Large Infrastructure OP) PNDR M07-Basic services and village renewal (roads, water and wastewater, 1,100,592,200 education, health and social, culture) (National Rural Development Program) POR AP 5 (cultural heritage) 298,340,426 (Regional Operational Programme) POR AP 6 (local and regional roads) 946,808,511 POR AP 8 (health and social infrastructure) 425,531,915 POR AP 10 (education infrastructure) 319,148,936 220. These allocations can be split, to fit more the investment portfolio covered by the PNDL. In some cases the split is known (e.g., for water and wastewater investments under the Large Infrastructure Operational Programme (LI OP), in other cases certain assumptions have to be taken. For example, under Measure 7, the PNDR will fund basic services in rural areas, which can include investments in roads, investments in water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as investments in social infrastructure. Looking at the experience of PNDR 2007-2013 and its Measure 322, one could give the following rough allocation of funds: 40% for communal roads; 40% for water and wastewater investments; 20% for social infrastructure. At the same time, one needs to consider where such investments are financed. For example, the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 many financed investments will target primarily urban areas. Thus, an assumption used here is that: around 20% of health sector investments under the ROP will target rural areas (the bulk of the funding will go to regional hospitals, county hospitals, and urban hospitals); around 40% of funds for the education sector will target rural areas; around 30% of funds for cultural infrastructure will target rural areas. These are of course gross approximations – the exact figures will be known when the respective programs will be finalized. 221. Nonetheless, this gross approximation allows an estimation of funds allocated through EU funds to the type of investments financed by the PNDL. The table below provides these estimates. Table 8. Allocation of EU funds by PNDL project types 2014-2020 programming period Allocation from ESI funds Share in total (Euro) (%) LI OP AP4 (water and wastewater) 2,574,000,000 52% PNDR M07 (roads – 40% of the total allocation) 440,236,880 9% PNDR M07 (water and waste water – 40% of the total allocation) 440,236,880 9% PNDR M07 (education – 6.6% of the total allocation) 73,740,000 1.5% PNDR M07 (health and social – 3.3% of the total 72,630,000 1.5% 80 allocation) PNDR M07 (cultural – 6.6% of the total allocation) 73,740,000 1.5% POR AP5 (cultural heritage) 89,500,000 1.8% POR AP6 (roads) 946,808,511 19% POR AP8 (health - half of the allocation on AP8 which also includes social infrastructure) 85,100,000 1.7% POR AP10 (education infrastructure) 127,660,000 2.6% Total 4,923,650,000 100% 222. Summing up these estimates gives the following allocation by PNDL priority area: 1) county roads – 19%; 2) communal roads – 9%; 3) water and wastewater – 52%; 4) social infrastructure – 20%. This split by priorities could in turn lead to the following PNDL budget breakdown: Table 9. Proposed allocation of PNDL budget (in mil. Euro) - the EU Priorities Scenario (in mil. Euro) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL Sub-programmes 353.6 371.3 389.9 409.4 429.8 451.3 473.9 2,879.2 County roads 67.2 70.5 74.1 77.8 81.7 85.8 90.0 547.0 Local/communal roads 31.8 33.4 35.1 36.8 38.7 40.6 42.6 259.1 Water and waste water 183.9 193.1 202.7 212.9 223.5 234.7 246.4 1,497.2 Social infrastructure 70.7 74.3 78.0 81.9 86.0 90.3 94.8 575.8 The Investment Need Priorities Scenario 223. The allocation of the PNDL budget can also be done according to the investment needs in each particular priority sector covered. For county and communal roads this is a relatively easy endeavor – these can be estimated using the MRDPA cost standards and multiplying those by the number of gravel and dirt roads that require modernization. In the case of water and wastewater investments, the team has used the investment needs included in the regional water masterplans, subtracting the major investments already completed or committed since 2007. In the case of social infrastructure, the team has elaborated a methodology for estimating investment needs. 224. Social infrastructure needs are complex, and are best known by local authorities. There are nonetheless ways to estimate investment needs. A first step in this direction was the elaboration of social infrastructure needs by county, and by locality, using a number of indicators (the methodology will be discussed in the following sections). Several scenarios were considered. The first scenario only took into consideration the communes with the highest infrastructure needs. A second scenario took into consideration all communes with above-average social infrastructure needs, as measured using a number of indicators. For the third scenario, a reallocation system has been considered, by setting a minimum threshold of 5 and a maximum of 20 projects per county, for each type of social 81 infrastructure. This has helped avoid the polarization of funds in a limited number of areas, and has ensured that each county gets allocated a minimum funding for each type of investment (education, health, culture, sports). 225. The estimated financial allocation per county has been determined using as a starting point the number of projects and the average cost standard for each type of investment (Government Resolution no. 362/2010, Government Ordinances 7/2006, the PNDR maximum project values, and average project costs for similar projects under the PNDL). The following estimated project values were used:  EDUCATION=330,000 Euro/project (the average cost standard between a Kindergarten for 4 groups – 256,455 Euro (Annex 2.11, GD 363/2010) and a school for 8 classes – 402,985 (Annex 2.10, GD 363/2010); the average cost for an education infrastructure project under PNDL is around 358,000 Euro).  HEALTH=500,000 Euro/project (the maximum project value for medical centers in rural areas financed by the PNDR 2014-2020, Measure 7.2; the average cost for a health infrastructure project under PNDL is around 336,000 Euro).  CULTURE=1,000,000 Euro/project (the average cost standard for a Cultural Center (Annex 2.2, GD 363/2010; the average cost for a cultural infrastructure project under PNDL is around 645,500 Euro).  SPORTS=400,000 Euro/project (the average cost standard between a Sports Hall – 665,720 Euro (Annex 2.1, GD 363/2010) and the maximum eligible value for a Rural Sports Base (GD 7/2006); the average cost for a sports infrastructure project under PNDL is around 250,000 Euro). 226. The estimated investment needs for each PNDL priority sector are included in the table below: Table 10. Estimated sector investment needs, by PNDL priority sector Priority Investment Need Share in PNDL (in Euro) Program County Roads €3,412,193,664 10% Communal Roads €4,728,319,110 13% Water and Wastewater €23,804,837,000 67% Social Infrastructure €3,705,110,000 10% 227. It is clear that investment needs are heavily skewed towards water and wastewater investments. Romania has a significant deficit in terms of water and wastewater infrastructure (partly because of the high number of people living in small rural localities). Also, the requirements set by the EU in this sector are quite high, putting double pressure on Romania to allocate significant resources for such investments. An allocation of the PNDL budget based on investment needs will look as follows: 82 Table 11. Proposed allocation of PNDL budget (in mil. Euro) - the Investment Need Priorities Scenario (in mil. Euro) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL Sub-programmes 353.6 371.3 389.9 409.4 429.8 451.3 473.9 2,879.2 County roads 35.4 37.1 39.0 40.9 43.0 45.1 47.4 287.9 Local/communal roads 46.0 48.3 50.7 53.2 55.9 58.7 61.6 374.3 Water and waste water 236.9 248.8 261.2 274.3 288.0 302.4 317.5 1,929.1 Social infrastructure 35.4 37.1 39.0 40.9 43.0 45.1 47.4 287.9 Proposal for PNDL Priorities Scenario 228. It is clear that none of the scenarios proposed above is perfect. All of the three scenarios provide however useful insights into how the allocation per priority sector could be done. It is obvious for example that water and wastewater is by far the sector with the most significant needs. It is also clear that local authorities have a strong preference for investment in communal roads, which are easy to design and implement. Also, the investment needs for communal roads are higher than for county roads, and the available funds from other programs are much smaller for communal roads (e.g. the ROP has allocated almost 1 billion Euro for investments in county roads, as opposed to the 440 million Euro available for communal roads under the PNDR). The needs for social infrastructure require relatively less investments than do water and wastewater, as well as communal roads, and there a significantly more funds available for such investments under EU funded programs. 229. Taking these into consideration, a proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014- 2020 budget by priorities could look as follows: Table 12. Proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 budget by priorities Priority Share in PNDL 2014-2020 County Roads 15% Communal Roads 25% Water and Wastewater 50% Social Infrastructure 10% 230. The table below indicates how the proposed PNDL 2014-2020 budget could be allocated by priorities and by years: 83 Table 13. Proposal for the allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 budget by priorities and by years (in mil. Euro) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL Sub-programmes 353.6 371.3 389.9 409.4 429.8 451.3 473.9 2,879.2 County roads 53.0 55.7 58.5 61.4 64.5 67.7 71.1 431.9 Local/communal roads 88.4 92.8 97.5 102.3 107.5 112.8 118.5 719.8 Water and waste water 176.8 185.7 194.9 204.7 214.9 225.7 236.9 1,439.6 Social infrastructure 35.4 37.1 39.0 40.9 43.0 45.1 47.4 287.9 231. This budget allocation differs from the way projects values are currently spread for the PNDL 2014. What the table below shows is that the projects contracted and considered for contracting right now under the PNDL 2014, are in excess of what is proposed in this report. This in itself poses a conundrum. Namely, the task going forward for the PNDL may not require the prioritization of new project proposals (with the exception of social infrastructure projects), but rather will require the prioritization of an already existent project list – i.e. decide which of these projects will receive financing in the 2014-2020 programming period. Inevitably, this will also require that some projects that are now being considered for financing will not receive any in the next 7 years. It is critical to identify and prioritize those projects that can be financed in a fixed timeline with a known and ensured budget. Table 14. Comparison of current distribution of the value of PNDL projects, and the proposed allocation for the PNDL 2014-2020 (in mil. Euro) Current Allocation Proposed Allocation for Difference Sub-programmes for PNDL 2014 PNDL 2014-2020 County Roads 709.4 431.9 277.5 Communal Roads 2,231.9 719.8 1,512.1 Water and Wastewater 1,788.3 1,439.6 348.7 Social Infrastructure 24.5 287.9 -263.4 TOTAL 4,754.1 2,879.2 1,874.9 Proposed Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Investments 232. This section proposes prioritization criteria for the main types of investments financed by the PNDL: county roads; communal roads; water; wastewater; education facilities; health units; cultural facilities; sports facilities. For each sector, the prioritization is envisaged to be done in two steps: (a) A prioritization to determine the optimal allocation of funds across counties, based on actual county needs for that respective sector; (b) A prioritization at the local and at the project level to determine which locality would benefit most from a particular type of investment, respectively which individual project would have the most significant impact. 84 County roads How to allocate funds for county roads across counties 233. The allocation of funds across counties can be done using the following prioritization criteria: Table 15. Prioritization criteria for county roads at the county level Proposed Measure Year Weight Relevance Indicator Investments RON 2011 30% The way funds are allocated should be done mostly Needs based on where the need is greatest. In this case, the greatest need was calculated by identifying the counties with the largest network of dirt or gravel county roads made – i.e., county roads requiring modernization. The investment needs for modernization work were evaluated using cost standards developed by the MRDPA. Population Number 2011 20% The total population of the county is another important prioritization criteria, as the rehabilitation of a county road network should take into consideration how many people will benefit from this investment. Local Value 2011 15% The LHDI was designed by Prof. Dumitru Sandu and Human indicates for each county the respective level of Development development. The methodology for the elaboration of Index the LHDI is discussed in Annex 10. The less developed a county is, the more attention it should be given as it will likely have fewer resources for the development of critical infrastructure. Financial Value 2014- 15% The FSI was developed by Victor Giosan and Graham Sustainability 2022 Glenday and it measures the prudent capital expenditure Index margin for a local authority. The FSI represents, in a simplified form, 30% of non-earmarked revenues over an implementation timeline (in this case 2014-2022, which corresponds to the next EU programming period, including two years for finishing up investments started through 2020). Annex 11 indicates the methodology for the FSI and the index calculated for county councils and local authorities. The FSI is also meant as a counter - weight to the LHDI, as it shows the capacity of public authorities to cover operations and maintenance costs for completed infrastructure projects. Usually, the poorer public authorities have a weaker capacity to cover such costs. 85 Number Number 2011 20% This is thought as a counterweight to population of numbers, as there may be counties with a high Motor Vehicles population, but with a low motorization rate, and counties with a smaller population but a higher motorization rate. 234. Annex 12 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. 235. In turn, the priority list in Annex 12 was used to propose an allocation of the budget for county roads by counties, as shown in Annex 20. An allocation based on investment needs was also considered, but the differences between different counties were too high. For example, in Covasna the budget allocation for county road rehabilitation was 1.8 million Euro, while for Hunedoara it was 28.6 million Euro. The prioritization criteria used above smooth the results, and they factor in other criteria, such as poverty level, for determining needs at the county level. It was decided to have no budget allocation for Ilfov County given that the investment needs are relatively small. How to prioritize county roads projects within a county 236. The criteria used to evaluate and select different projects have to be calibrated to the system that will actually use those criteria. In the case of the PNDL, the system has a reduced capacity – it currently lacks a pool of external evaluators that could take on such a task and has only limited internal staff. As such, elaborated criteria, similar to those used by the Regional Operational Programme, are hard to implement. 237. The choice was thus taken to propose a more normative approach and determine the priority county road development projects for each county – i.e. the county road links that PNDL funds should go to first. The prioritization criteria are included in the table below. Table 16. Prioritization criteria for county road projects STEP 1 – Prioritization of all county roads within a county Prioritization Criteria Weight Relevance Connection to opportunities 30% While the network of county roads is relatively  Connection to a growth pole (10 points) large in every county, some road links are more  Connection to a county residence (7 points) important than others. Of particular importance  Connection to a city with more than 10,000 are those county roads that improve people (4 points) accessibility to centers of opportunity – i.e.,  Connection to a city with less than 10,000 larger localities that provide jobs, education, people (1 point) healthcare, culture, administrative services and act as engines for the local/ county/ regional/ national economy. Connection to major trunk infrastructure 20% Connection to major trunk infrastructure 86  Connection to a highways proposed in the enables overall accessibility to people living Transport Masterplan (10 points) along the respective county road.  Connection to an express road proposed in the Transport Masterplan (7 points)  Connection to a national road (4 points) Traffic on the County Road 30% The more travelled a county road is the more  More than 3,500 vehicles per day (10 points) attention it should garner when it comes to  2,000-3,500 vehicles per day (7 points) rehabilitation/modernization works.  500-2,000 vehicles per day (4 points)  Less than 500 vehicles per day (1 point) Number of people per km serviced by county road 20% It is not enough to ease access to opportunities,  More than 450 people/km (10 points) it is important to do so for as many people as  300-450 people/km (7 points) possible. County roads that connect a larger  150-300 people/km (4 points) population to a center of opportunity should  Less than 150 people/km (1 point) receive a higher score. STEP 2 – Identification of projects that could be financed from EU funds* Sub-step 2.1 Reasoning Identify the county roads that connect to the TEN-T network. County roads that connect to the TEN-T network may be eligible for funding unde the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, and applicants should first apply to the ROP, before attempting to apply for PNDL funding. If, the ROP application is not accepted for funding, applicants should provide an explanation of why it was not accepted. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020. STEP 3 – Identify the road links that should receive PNDL funding Sub-step 3.1 Reasoning Using the priority list prepared under Step 1, and subtracting Available funds should be allocated with priority the county roads that may be eligible for EU funding, determine to the road links that have been identified by the length of the county road links defined as “bad”, which the county councils as being “bad”. It is the could be financed from the county road a llocation for the county councils that best know which road links respective county. Funding will be given to the county roads are in most need. The prioritization that have received the highest score under Step 1, and which methodology described unser Step 1 ensures have a road link defined as “bad”. If the PNDL funding available that a unified methodology is used nationally to a county for county road projects will suffice to modernize all for allocating PNDL funds for “bad” county road road links defined as “bad”, Sub -step 3.2 will be undertaken. links. County councils have provided information on the state of the roads (i.e. “good”, “medium”, “bad”). According to GD 363/2010, the standard cost for the 87 modernization of 1 km of county road is €332,832. Sub-step 3.2 Reasoning If available funding for a particular county suffices to cover the If “bad” county road links can be covered with modernization of all “bad” county road links, the remaining allocated PNDL funds, the rest of available funding can be used for the rehabilitation of “medium” county funds should go to second priority road links road links as follows: identified by county councils as being in a  Priority will be given to the county roads with the “medium” state. highest estimated score under Step 1, with the exception of the roads that may be eligible for EU funding.  Funding will be allocated with priority to dirt or gravel roads defined as “medium”.  If funds will remain after this allocation, remaining funds will be allocated to “medium” county road links that have the following coverage type: cement concrete; paved with setts; or, bituminous asphalt.  Should funding be available even after this allocation, the remaining funds will be allocated to “medium” county road links that have been modernized already (i.e. they have an asphalt concrete coverage). County councils have provided information on the state of the roads (i.e. “good”, “medium”, “bad”) and on the surface coverage of county roads. According to GD 363/2010, the standard cost for the rehabilitation of 1 km of county road is €273,85 5. 238. Individual maps will be created for each individual county, with a list of priority projects. The lists will be elaborated using data on the state of the county roads, as reported by the county councils through October 2014. Communal roads How to allocate funds for communal roads across counties 239. The allocation of funds at the county level can be done using the following prioritization criteria: Table 17. Prioritization criteria for communal roads at the county level Prioritization Criteria Measure Year Weight Relevance Investments Needs Euro 2011 40% The way funds are allocated should take into account where the need is greatest. In this case, the greatest need was calculated by identifying the counties with the largest network of communal roads made of gravel 88 Prioritization Criteria Measure Year Weight Relevance and stone – i.e., communal roads requiring modernization. The investment needs for modernization work were evaluated using cost standards developed by the MRDPA. Rural Population Number 2011 30% Communal roads primarily service people in rural areas and the larger the rural population of a county, the more attention should paid to rehabilitation/ modernization of communal roads there. Local Value 2011 15% The LHDI was designed by Prof. Dumitru Sandu Human Development and indicates for each county the respective Index level of development. The methodology for the elaboration of the LHDI is discussed in Annex 10. The less developed a county is, the more attention it should be given as it will likely have fewer resources for the development of critical infrastructure. Financial Sustainability Value 2014-2022 15% The FSI was developed by Victor Giosan and Index Graham Glenday and it measures the prudent capital expenditure margin for a local authority. The FSI represents, in a simplified form, 30% of non-earmarked revenues over an implementation timeline (in this case 2014- 2022, which corresponds to the next EU programming period, including two years for finishing up investments started through 2020). Annex 11 indicates the methodology for the FSI and the index calculated for county councils and local authorities. The FSI is also meant as a counter-weight to the LHDI, as it shows the capacity of public authorities to cover operations and maintenance costs for completed infrastructure projects. Usually, the poorer public authorities have a weaker capacity to cover such costs. 240. Annex 13 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. 241. In turn, the priority list in Annex 13 was used to propose an allocation of the budget for communal roads by counties, as shown in Annex 21. An allocation based on investment needs was also considered, but the differences between different counties were too high. For example, in Ilfov the budget allocation for communal road rehabilitation was 0.1 million Euro, while for Argeș it was 37.9 million Euro. The prioritization criteria used above smooth the results, and they factor in other criteria, such as poverty level, for determining needs at the county level. Nonetheless, it was decided to have no budget 89 allocation for Ilfov, as the investment need for Ilfov is around 3 million Euro – a relatively small sum, which can be covered from the local budget. How to prioritize communal roads projects within a county 242. The prioritization of investments in communal roads cannot realistically be done on a road-by-road basis, as was proposed for county roads, because of the sheer number of roads that need to be considered. The coordination can however be done at the locality level and the following prioritization criteria can be used in this sense. Table 18. Prioritization criteria for communal road projects, by territorial administrative units (TAUs) STEP 1 - Elligibility Sub-step Reasoning Finance communal road projects only in PNDL funds should target initially larger communes, communes with more than 1,000 people. where a minimum of economies of scale can be achieved. STEP 2 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for communal roads Prioritization Criteria Weight Relevance Population of locality 40% The larger the population of a particular locality, the bigger the need for investments in communal roads. Population density 30% The denser a locality is, the more impactful a communal road development project is likely to be – i.e., a larger population can be serviced by fewer kilometers of road. Local Human Development Index 15% LHDI at the locality level should be taken into consideration to give more attention to poorer localities, which have a tougher time financing investments from their own budget. Financial Sustainability Index 15% The FSI at the locality level will provide a counterweight to the LHDI, ensuring that priority is given to localities face development needs but that can also actually cover operation and maintena nce costs once the development is finalized. STEP 2 – Identifying the TAUs that could receive PNDR 2014-2020 funding* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 funding the The communes that have a larger FSI, have a larger TAUs that have an FSI larger than 4 million budget capacity, and a higher administrative capacity Euro. Focus only on communal road projects required for writing a PNDR application. Moreover, of less than 5 kilometers . smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow According to GD 363/2010, the standard cost more communes to benefit from investments in their for the modernization of 1 km of communal communal roads. road is €193,506. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the PNDR 2014-2020. 90 243. The map below indicates the communes with the highest need for investment in communal roads, as determined using the prioritization criteria above. The allocation of localities to priority criteria was done using the Natural Breaks Jenks method33 . A county- by-county discussion of priorities for communal roads, as well as the way PNDL projects (either contracted or with a standing commitment) fit within those priorities will be done as part of the work under Component 1. Figure 18. Prioritization of investments in communal roads by locality Water and Wastewater Infrastructure How to allocate funds for water and wastewater projects across regions 244. When it comes to water and wastewater investments the prioritization should ideally not be done at the county level, but rather at the regional operator level. The 33 The Naturak Breaks Jenks method is a data clustering approach that helps determine the best arrangement of a a set of values (in this case the priority score) into different classes. The method aims to minimize the average deviation from the class mean for each class, while at the same time maximizing the each class’ deviation from the means of the other groups. Simply put, the method heps generate classes that have a small variance within each other and a high variance between each other. 91 water and wastewater sector is primarily administered by regional operators and, whenever possible, it is important to encourage that new investments in water and wastewater be done within the framework of the regional operators. This would continue to encourage economies of scale and sustainable development of infrastructure. Among other things, this means that localities that develop such projects should enter the Intercommunity Development Association formed around the Regional Operator and, once the project is complete, they should cede operation, maintenance, and management of the new infrastructure to the Regional Operator. The proposed regional prioritization criteria are included below. Table 19. Prioritization criteria for water infrastructure at the regional level Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Investment Needs Euro 2014+ 40% Investment needs were calculated from the regional masterplans and they took the existing commitments for SOP Environment 2007-2013, PNDL, PNDR, and for the Environment Fund into consideration. This is the most important indicator, as it shows how much there is left to invest in the sector. People without access Number 2011 15% The more people are without access to piped to piped water water in the particular region, the higher the need for investments in the sector. LHDI Value 2011 15% In accordance with the Territorial Development Strategy of Romania, a priority should be given to providing key basic infrastructure in lagging regions. FSI Value 2011 15% This measure is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI. Whenever a local authority is investing in water infrastructure, especially if it will not cede the operation and management to the regional operator, it is good to check whether it will have the financial capacity to operate and maintain the investment. Affordability Water tariff / 2011 15% Priority should be given to the regions where Average monthly the water tariff does not represent a income in the substantial share of the average monthly region income. The more affordable the service is the more likely are people to connect to the service. 92 245. Annex 14 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. Table 20. Prioritization criteria for wastewater infrastructure at the regional level Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Investment Needs Euro 2014+ 40% Investment needs were calculated from the regional masterplans and they took the existing commitments for SOP Environment 2007-2013, PNDL, PNDR, and for the Environment Fund into consideration. This is the most important indicator, as it shows how much there is left to invest in the sector. People without access Number 2011 15% The more people are without access to sewage to a sewage system in the particular region, the higher the need for investments in the sector. LHDI Value 2011 15% In accordance with the Territorial Development Strategy of Romania, a priority should be given to providing key basic infrastructure in lagging regions. FSI Value 2011 15% This measure is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI. Whenever a local authority is investing in water infrastructure, especially if it will not cede the operation and management to the regional operator, it is good to check whether it will have the financial capacity to operate and maintain the investment. Affordability Wastewater tariff 2011 15% A priority should be given to the regions where / Average the wastewater tariff does not represent a monthly income substantial share of the average monthly in the region income. The more affordable the service is the more likely are people to connect to the service. 246. Annex 15 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. 247. In turn, the priority list in Annex 15 was used to propose an allocation of the budget for water and wastewater infrastructure by counties, as shown in Annex 22. An allocation based on investment needs was also considered, but the differences between different counties were too high. The prioritization criteria used above smooth the results, and they factor in other criteria, such as poverty level, for determining needs at the regional level. For the regions were the investment needs are 0, or very small, it was 93 decided to make no budget allocation from PNDL. These regions include: Aries, Gorj, Ilfov, Sibiu, and Târnave. For Cluj-Sălaj and Constanța -Ialomița, an extra allocation of 30% and 50% respectively was included, given that these regions cover two counties. This extra allocation also took actual investment needs into consideration – e.g., the estimated investment need for Cluj-Sălaj is around 232 million Euro (one of the lowest funding gap of all regions). How to allocate funds for water and wastewater projects within a region 248. The prioritization of PNDL projects in water and wastewater should take into consideration the water masterplans, as well as other investments done through other major operational programs (SOP Environment, Large Infrastructure Operational Programme, PNDR, the Environment Fund), to ensure proper coordination and harmonization of investments. 249. Water and wastewater prioritization criteria should also take into consideration the targets that Romania has committed to in the EU Accession Treaty. Three directives have to be taken into consideration in this respect:  The Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)  The Urban Wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC)  The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) The importance of these directives is discussed below. 250. The Drinking Water Directive aims “to protect human health from adverse ef fects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean.”34 For this purpose, member states are to monitor at least 48 parameters for all distribution systems that serve more than 50 people or supply more than 10 cubic meters per day, as well as all for all water supplied as part of an economic activity. 35 The directive further lays out provisions for proper planning, regulation, monitoring, and reporting. The same directive notes that derogations from its provisions are possible, as follows: the first two, each limited to a maximum of three years, are the responsibility of member states; a third “exceptional” derogation can be granted by the EC. In the case of Romania, as noted in the country’s EU Accessio n Treaty, the derogations for achieving the Directive’s targ ets are as follows:  Agglomerations with less than 10,000 inhabitants — Oxidisability: December 31, 2010 — Ammonium, nitrates, turbidity, aluminums, iron, lead, cadmium, and pesticides: December 31, 2015  Agglomerations with 10,000-100,000 inhabitants 34 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/legislation_en.html . 35 Ibid. 94 — Oxidisability and turbidity: December 31, 2010 — Ammonium, nitrates, aluminum, iron, lead, cadmium, pesticides, and manganese: December 31, 2015  Agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants — Oxidisability, ammonium, aluminum, pesticides, iron, and manganese: December 31, 2010 251. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive seeks to “protect the environment from urban waste water discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors.” 36 In short, the Directive mandates: the Collection and treatment of waste water in all agglomerations of more than 2,000 population equivalents (p.e.); secondary treatment of all discharges from agglomerations of over 2,000 p.e. and more advanced treatment for agglomerations of over 10,000 population equivalents in sensitive areas and their catchments; pre-authorization of all discharges of urban wastewater, of discharges from the food-processing industry, and of industrial discharges into urban wastewater collection systems; monitoring of the performance of treatment plants and receiving waters; and controls of sewage sludge disposal and reuse, and treated waste water reuse when possible. The text of the Directive was formally adopted in 1993, with an implementation timeline of up to the end of 2005. For Romania and other new EU member states, however, a different timetable was set at the time of accession. The implementation schedule with intermediate and final targets is provided below: Table 21. Key requirements for the Urban Wastewater Directive Collecting system for urban wastewater Treatment of urban wastewater Deadline Size of agglomeration (people Size of agglomeration (people % % (Dec. 31) equivalent) equivalent) 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 secondary 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 60.80% 50.50% 2010 treatment 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 69.10% 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 secondary 60.60% 2013 PE ≥ 10,000 100% treatment 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 secondary 76.70% 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 80.20% treatment PE ≥ 10,000 tertiary treatment 100% ≥ 70% (SOP Population connected to a wastewater collection and treatment system 2015 Environment) 2018 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 100% 2000 ≤ PE < 10,000 100% 252. The EU Water Framework Directive was adopted with the aim of establishin g an integrated framework “for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater.” 37 In short, the directive seeks to achieve good 36See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/index_en.html . 37 See Article 1 of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN. 95 ecological status for all water bodies in the EU. The specific aims of the Directive are multifold: to prevent further deterioration; to promote sustainable water use; to progressively reduce discharges as well as the pollution of ground water; and to mitigate effects of floods and droughts. Romania has committed to reaching a good state for 60% of the surface waters, groundwater, and protected areas by December 2015 (i.e., fifteen years after the adoption of the directive), with potential derogations through December 2021/2027 under justified circumstances, based on Article 4 (4) and 4 (5). Annex V of the WFD 2000/60/EC provides detailed indicators for assessing the status of a particular body of water. 253. Accordingly, the prioritization of water and wastewater projects at the regional level can be done following the steps below: Table 22. Prioritization criteria for water projects, by locality STEP 1 - Elligibility Sub-step Reasoning Identify all localities at the water region level with more than 50 According to the EU Water Acquis, it is only people these localities that should be prioritized for investments in water infrastructure. Investments for smaller localities are not considered a priority STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects Sub-step Reasoning Identify localities financed under LI OP 2014-2020, as well as localities This allows the charting of all ongoing or with ongoing investments under SOP Environment 2007-2013, PNDL, proposed investments in the sector, and PNDR, and the Environment Fund ensures that PNDL funds will go to completing started PNDL water investments or go to starting new investments in areas not yet covered by other investment programs STEP 3 – Prioritization of water investments Prioritization Criteria Weight Reasoning Population in locality without access to piped water 35% Localities with a higher number of unserved  More than 2,000 people (10 points) people should receive a higher priority.  1,000-2,000 people (7 points)  500-1,000 people (4 points)  Less than 500 people ( 1 point) Level of development of locality as measured by the Local 15% Priority should be given to less developed Human Development Index localities, which lack the resources to  Poor locality (10 points) undertake needed investments in the sector.  Low-med locality (7 points)  Hi-med locality (4 points)  Developed locality (1 point) Financial Sustainability as measured by the FSI 15% The capacity of the locality to potentially  > 2,500,000 Euro (10 points) cover operations and maintenance costs should be factored in 96  1,500,000 – 2,500,000 (7 points)  1,000,000 – 1,500,000 (4 points)  < 1,000,000 (1 point) Locality is part of a regional system within the water 35% Ideally, investments in water should only masterplan focus on localities that are part of the  Yes (10 points) masterplan, as these were identified as the  No (4 points) target places for achieving the EU Acquis. Also, the masterplans already presuppose a prioritization process of investments, including an analysis of affordability of the service and the capacity of end-users to pay for the service. Table 23. Prioritization criteria for wastewater projects, by agglomerations STEP 1 - Elligibility Sub-step Reasoning Identify all agglomerations at the water region level with more than According to the EU Water Acquis, it is only 2,000 people equivalent these localities that should be prioritized for investments in wastewater infrastructure. Investments for smaller localities are not considered a priority STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded programs Sub-step Reasoning Identify agglomerations financed under LI OP 2014-2020, as well as This allows the charting of all ongoing or localities with ongoing investments under SOP Environment 2007- proposed investments in the sector, and 2013, PNDL, PNDR, and the Environment Fund ensures that PNDL funds will go to completing started PNDL wastewater investment or to starting new investments in areas not yet covered by other investment programs STEP 3 – Prioritization of wastewater investments Prioritization Criteria Weight Reasoning Helping achieve a better quality of water bodies 10% This measure can help achieve the EU Water  Waterbodies in moderate, poor, or bad state OR Framework Directive, while at the same time with good ecological potential (10 points) meeting targets for the Wastewater  Waterbodies in good or very good state OR with Directive. moderate ecological potential (4 points) Population in locality without access to sewage 30% Localities with a higher number of unserved  More than 3,000 people (10 points) people should receive a higher priority.  2,000-3,000 people (7 points)  1,000-2,000 people (4 points)  Less than 1,000 people (1 point) Level of development of locality as measured by the Local 15% Priority should be given to less developed Human Development Index localities, which lack the resources to 97  Poor locality (10 points) undertake needed investments in the sector.  Low-med locality (7 points)  Hi-med locality (4 points)  Developed locality (1 point) Financial Sustainability as measure by the FSI 15% The capacity of the locality to potentially  > 2,500,000 Euro (10 points) cover operations and maintenance costs  1,500,000 – 2,500,000 (7 points) should be factored in  1,000,000 – 1,500,000 (4 points)  < 1,000,000 (1 point) Locality is part of a regional system within the water 30% Ideally, investments in wastewater should masterplan only focus on localities that are part of the  Yes (10 points) masterplan, as these were identified as the  No (4 points) target places for achieving the EU Acquis. Also, the masterplans already presuppose a prioritization process of investments, including an analysis of affordability of the service and the capacity of end-users to pay for the service. Social infrastructure How to allocate funds for social infrastructure across counties 254. The allocation of funds for four types of social infrastructure (health, education, cultural, sports), at the county level, can be done using the following prioritization criteria: Table 24. Prioritization criteria for health infrastructure at the county level Proposed indicator Measure Year Specific Relevance weight Life expectancy Number of 2013 10% Indicates the accessibility of people to years quality health services. Developed counties are characterized by a high level of life quality as suggested by life expectancy. Number of inhabitants / Number 2013 30% Indicates the accessibility to primary medical physician services. The provision of a sufficient number of physicians generally ensures lower morbidity rates and higher life expectancy. Number of hospital beds / Number 2013 10% Indicates the accessibility to specialized 100,000 inhabitants medical services. The availability of complex emergency and specialized services, such as the ones offered by hospitals, generally suggests a better quality of life for citizens. 98 Share of population over 65 % 2011 20% Indicates the level of demand for health in total population services that is directly correlated with the population’s median age. Number of inhabitants / Number 2013 30% Indicates the accessibility to pharmaceutical pharmacy drugs. The access to pharmacies generally ensures a better health condition for the population. 255. Annex 16 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. Table 25. Prioritization criteria for education infrastructure at the county level Proposed indicator Measure unit Time Specific Relevance period weight Share of pre- and school- % 2011 40% Indicates the availability of a critical mass of aged population (3-18 beneficiaries for the educational structure. It years) in total population is mainly an efficiency indicator, orienting the investments to the counties with the highest number of pupils . The early school leaving % 2011 10% One of the causes of the early-school leaving rate phenomenon, besides the socio-economic issues, is the poor access to school infrastructure. Thus, investments should be oriented towards the peripheral settlements with limited access to quality educational services. LHDI Value 2011 15% Poverty is strongly correlated with poor education and early-school leaving. Investments in educational services should target poor communities with limited resources and social issues. In accordance with the Territorial Development Strategy of Romania, a priority should be given to providing key basic infrastructure in lagging regions. FSI Value 2014-2022 15% This measure is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI. Whenever a local authority is investing in social infrastructure it is good to check whether it will have the financial capacity to operate and maintain the investment. Number of PCs / 1,000 Number 2013 10% Access to educational IT&C infrastructure is 99 pupils an indicator for the quality of life and also for the quality of education (endowment of education facilities). Poor and remote areas are generally confronted with poor access to IT&C tools, both in households and schools . Number of sports fields / Number 2013 10% The obesity phenomenon among pupils has 1,000 pupils grown in the last years and schools should provide proper sports facilities to improve their physical condition. 256. Annex 17 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. Table 26.Prioritization criteria for cultural infrastructure at the county level Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Number of museums Number 2013 10% The lack of museums in many cities and villages is a barrier in developing a strong cultural and touristic local offer. Investments in such cultural units should target the most deprived areas in terms of museum and exhibition infrastructure. Number of tourists hosted Number 2013 40% Tourism and culture are often interlinked. The already existing tourist poles should be supported by investments in cultural infrastructure, in order to exploit their full potential and prolong tourist stays. Number of seats in art Number 2013 10% The availability of art performing venues is performing institutions / an indicator of the quality of life. companies Investments in such facilities should target those settlements, especially urban ones , which have no/fewer such institutions. Number of public libraries Number 2013 10% Public libraries offer basic cultural services that should be available to all citizens, regardless of their residence. Thus, investments in such units should be oriented towards the most cultural deprived areas . LHDI Value 2011 15% Investments in cultural infrastructure should target poor communities with limited resources for such investments . FSI Value 2014-2022 15% This measure is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI. Whenever a local authority is 100 investing in social infrastructure it is good to check whether it will have the financial capacity to operate and maintain the investment. 257. Annex 18 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. Table 27. Prioritization criteria for sports infrastructure at the county level Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Share of young population % 2011 40% Youngsters represent the largest share of (5-29) in total population sports facilities users. The indicator reflects the availability of a critical mass of end users for sports infrastructure. Number of sports clubs Number 2013 10% The number of clubs is a relevant indicator of the citizens’ interest in sports, indicating also a high demand for better sport facilities. Number of registered Number 2013 20% This number of registered sportsmen and sportsmen/sportswomen is also relevant for sportswomen evaluating the demand for sports infrastructure at local level . LHDI Value 2011 15% Investments in sports infrastructure should target poor communities with limited resources for such investments . FSI Value 2014-2022 15% This measure is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI. Whenever a local authority is investing in social infrastructure it is good to check whether it will have the financial capacity to operate and maintain the investment. 258. Annex 19 indicates the compounded results of the application of the above prioritization criteria. How to allocate funds for social infrastructure projects within a county 259. It is hard to keep track and monitor needs in social infrastructure at the local level, given the sheer number of villages (around 13,000) that have such infrastructure in need of rehabilitation, or require such infrastructure to be developed. The criteria below are meant to chart the infrastructure need in the four sectors (health, education, cultural, sports) at the locality level: 101 Table 28. Prioritization criteria for health infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) STEP 1 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for health infrastructure projects Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Share of population over 65 % 2011 20% Indicates the level of demand for health in total population services, that is directly correlated with the population’s median age Number of inhabitants / Number 2013 20% Indicates the accessibility to primary physician medical services. The provision of a sufficient number of physicians generally ensures lower morbidity rates and higher life expectancy. Number of inhabitants / Number 2013 20% Indicates the accessibility to pharmacy pharmaceutical drugs. The access to pharmacies generally ensures a better health condition for the population. Distance to the closest Kilometer 2013 20% Indicates the accessibility to specialized hospital medical services. The availability of complex emergency and specialized services, such as the ones offered by hospitals, generally suggests a better quality of life for citizens. Average mortality / infant ‰ 2009-2013 20% The average mortality rate is an indicator mortality rate directly influenced by the average age and the quality of medical services. Higher mortality rates indicate both an unfavorable age structure and the need for improved medical services. STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 or POR 2014-2020 funding the TAUs that The communes that have a larger FSI, have have an FSI larger than 4 million Euro. Focus only on health a larger budget capacity, and a higher infrastructure projects of less than €500,000. administrative capacity required for writing a PNDR or a ROP application, and required for writing more complex and higher value integrated development projects (which are eligible under PNDR). Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their communal roads. €500,000 is the upper threshold set in the draft PNDR 2014-2020 programmatic 102 document, and it should be used by PNDL too, to ensure a coordinated approach. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 and the PNDR 2014-2020. 260. The map below indicates the communes with the highest need for investment in health infrastructure, as determined using the prioritization criteria above. The allocation of localities to priority criteria was done using the Natural Breaks Jenks method. A county- by-county discussion of priorities for health infrastructure, as well as the way PNDL projects (either contracted or with a standing commitment) fit within those priorities will be done as part of the work under Component 1. Figure 19. Prioritization of investments in health infrastructure by locality Table 29. Prioritization criteria for educational infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) STEP 1 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for educational infrastructure projects Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Number of school aged (6- Number 2011 30% Indicates the sustainability of educational 18) / pre-school aged (3-6) investments. The existence of a critical population mass of children and pupils ensure the efficiency and improves the impact of public spending. 103 Share of population with % 2011 10% It is a measure for the likelihood that the pre-university education educational infrastructure will be used. Average no of Number 2013 10% Indicates the provision of sufficient children/pupils / classroom educational infrastructure for the school population. A high number of pupils/classroom generally indicates the need for additional investments in extending the existing infrastructure. LHDI Value 2013 15% The level of socio-economic development is strongly correlated with quality of educational services. Investments in educational services should target less developed communities with limited resources and social issues. FSI Value 2014-2020 15% The FSI is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI and measures the capacity of the public authorities to operate and maintain the infrastructure investment once it has been finalized. Number of PCs / 1,000 Number 2013 10% The access to educational IT&C pupils infrastructure is an indicator for the quality of life and of the schools endowment (quality of education). Poor and remote areas are generally confronted with poor access to IT&C tools, both in households and schools. Number of sports fields / Number 2013 10% The obesity is on the rise among school 1,000 pupils children and schools should provide proper sports facilities to improve their physical condition. STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 or POR 2014-2020 funding the TAUs that The communes that have a larger FSI, have have an FSI larger than 4 million Euro. Focus only on education a larger budget capacity, and a higher infrastructure projects of less than €500,000. administrative capacity required for writing a PNDR or a ROP application, and required for writing more complex and higher value integrated development projects (which are eligible under PNDR). Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their 104 communal roads. €500,000 is the upper threshold set in the draft PNDR 2014-2020 programmatic document, and it should be used by PNDL too, to ensure a coordinated approach. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 and the PNDR 2014-2020. 261. The map below indicates the communes with the highest need for investment in educational infrastructure, as determined using the prioritization criteria above. The allocation of localities to priority criteria was done using the Natural Breaks Jenks method. A county-by-county discussion of priorities for educational infrastructure, as well as the way PNDL projects (either contracted or with a standing commitment) fit within those priorities will be done as part of the work under Component 1. Figure 20. Prioritization of investments in educational infrastructure by locality 105 Table 30. Prioritization criteria for cultural infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) STEP 1 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for cultural infrastructure projects Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Average number of tourists Number 2009-2013 30% It indicates the settlement’s touristic attractiveness, considering that culture and tourism are strongly correlated. The existing touristic poles require additional investments in cultural infrastructure and events, in /order to improve their offer to visitors and to improve their competitiveness. Average number of visitors Number 2009-2013 20% It indicates the cultural attractiveness of in museums the settlements. Such investments should target the cultural poles, by exploiting their existing potential. Average number of Number 2009-2013 10% It signals the level of cultural services ’ organized performances provision. More performances indicate the existence of a strong demand for cultural events that should be supported by investments in infrastructure. Average number of active Number 2011-2013 10% The indicator reveals the level of the readers in public libraries cultural demand at local level, orienting the investments in an efficient way. LHDI Value 2013 15% The level of socio-economic development is strongly correlated with quality of educational services. Investments in educational services should target less developed communities with limited resources and social issues. FSI Value 2014-2020 15% The FSI is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI and measures the capacity of the public authorities to operate and maintain the infrastructure investment once it has been finalized. STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 or POR 2014-2020 funding the TAUs that The communes that have a larger FSI, have have an FSI larger than 4 million Euro. Focus only on cultural a larger budget capacity, and a higher infrastructure projects of less than €1,000,000. If cultural heritage sites administrative capacity required for are financed, focus only on Class B sites. writing a PNDR or a ROP application, and required for writing more complex and higher value integrated development projects (which are eligible under PNDR). Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their communal roads. 106 €1,000,000 is the upper threshold set in the draft PNDR 2014-2020 programmatic document, and it should be used by PNDL too, to ensure a coordinated approach. The ROP focuses on Class A cultural heritage sites in urban and rural areas, and on Class B cultural heritage sites in urban areas. The PNDR focuses on Class B cultural heritage sites in rural areas, and so should the PNDL to ensure a coordinated approach. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for t he Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 and the PNDR 2014-2020. 262. The map below indicates the communes with the highest need for investment in cultural infrastructure, as determined using the prioritization criteria above. The allocation of localities to priority criteria was done using the Natural Breaks Jenks method. A county-by-county discussion of priorities for cultural infrastructure, as well as the way PNDL projects (either contracted or with a standing commitment) fit within those priorities will be done as part of the work under Component 1. Figure 21. Prioritization of investments in cultural infrastructure by locality 107 Table 31. Prioritization criteria for sports infrastructure projects, by territorial administrative unit (TAU) Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Share of young population % 2011 40% Youngsters represent the largest share of (5-29) in total population sports facilities users. The indicator reflects the availability of a critical mass of end users for sports infrastructure. Number of sports rooms / Number 2013 15% The indicator is relevant for evaluating the 1,000 inhabitants quantitative availability of sports facilities at local level. Investments of such kind should target the most deprived areas in terms of sports facilities. Number of sports fields / Number 2013 15% The indicator is relevant for evaluating the 1,000 inhabitants quantitative availability of sports facilities at local level. Investments of such kind should target the most deprived areas in terms of sports facilities. LHDI Value 2013 15% The level of socio-economic development is strongly correlated with quality of educational services. Investments in educational services should target less developed communities with limited resources and social issues. FSI Value 2014-2020 15% The FSI is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI and measures the capacity of the public authorities to operate and maintain the infrastructure investment once it has been finalized. STEP 2 – Elligibility Sub-step Reasoning Focus only on sports infrastructure projects of less than €665,720. This is in accordance with the standard costs included in GD 363/2010. No EU funded operational programmes proposes the funding of sports infrastructure in rural areas. 263. The map below indicates the communes with the highest need for investment in sports infrastructure, as determined using the prioritization criteria above. The allocation of localities to priority criteria was done using the Natural Breaks Jenks method. A county- by-county discussion of priorities for sports infrastructure, as well as the way PNDL projects (either contracted or with a standing commitment) fit within those priorities will be done as part of the work under Component 1. 108 Figure 22. Prioritization of investments in sports infrastructure by locality Proposed PNDL 2014-2020 budget allocation by counties 264. The information from the previous sections was put together to compound the allocation of the proposed PNDL 2014-2020 budget by counties (see table below). Since proposed budget figures for water and wastewater were calculated by water region, a simple split was done for the two water regions that are more or less made up of two counties (Cluj-Sălaj and Constanța -Ialomița). The budget allocations for the water regions that are part of a county (Arieș, Târnave, Valea Jiului) is 0, so there was no need to sum up them up together with the counties they are part of (Cluj, Sibiu, and Hunedoara respectively). The funding discrepancy in funding for some counties (e.g. Ilfov, Sibiu, or Gorj), is due to the lack of funding allocated for water and wastewater projects in these counties, as they are likely to cover most of their stringent needs if projects started in the 2007-2013 Programming Period will be finalized. 109 Table 32. Proposed allocation of the PNDL 2014-2020 by county County share of County total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL allocation (%) ALBA 2.59% 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.3 74.6 ARAD 2.50% 8.8 9.3 9.8 10.2 10.8 11.3 11.9 72.0 ARGES 2.87% 10.1 10.6 11.2 11.7 12.3 12.9 13.6 82.6 BACAU 2.89% 10.2 10.7 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.0 13.7 83.2 BIHOR 2.72% 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.3 12.9 78.3 BISTRITA- 2.37% 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.2 68.3 NASAUD BOTOSANI 2.68% 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.1 12.7 77.2 BRAILA 2.30% 8.1 8.5 9.0 9.4 9.9 10.4 10.9 66.2 BRASOV 2.63% 9.3 9.8 10.2 10.8 11.3 11.9 12.5 75.7 BUZAU 2.75% 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.0 79.2 CALARASI 2.38% 8.4 8.8 9.3 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.3 68.4 CARAS- 2.40% 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.8 10.3 10.8 11.4 69.2 SEVERIN CLUJ 2.04% 7.2 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.8 9.2 9.6 58.6 CONSTANTA 2.35% 8.3 8.7 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 67.6 COVASNA 2.26% 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.7 10.2 10.7 65.0 DAMBOVITA 2.57% 9.1 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.6 12.2 73.9 DOLJ 2.71% 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.2 12.8 78.1 GALATI 2.59% 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.3 74.6 GIURGIU 2.46% 8.7 9.1 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.6 70.8 GORJ 1.15% 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 33.0 HARGHITA 2.47% 8.7 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 71.1 HUNEDOARA 2.46% 8.7 9.1 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 70.8 IALOMITA 2.15% 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.7 10.2 61.9 IASI 2.91% 10.3 10.8 11.4 11.9 12.5 13.1 13.8 83.9 ILFOV 1.13% 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.3 32.5 MARAMURES 2.59% 9.1 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.3 74.5 MEHEDINTI 2.41% 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.3 10.9 11.4 69.3 MURES 2.72% 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.3 12.9 78.3 NEAMT 2.70% 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.6 12.2 12.8 77.6 OLT 2.64% 9.3 9.8 10.3 10.8 11.3 11.9 12.5 75.9 110 County share of County total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL allocation (%) PRAHOVA 2.73% 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.2 11.8 12.3 13.0 78.7 SALAJ 1.80% 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.5 51.8 SATU MARE 2.55% 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.4 10.9 11.5 12.1 73.3 SIBIU 1.17% 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 33.6 SUCEAVA 2.92% 10.3 10.8 11.4 11.9 12.5 13.2 13.8 84.0 TELEORMAN 2.62% 9.3 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.3 11.8 12.4 75.4 TIMIS 2.80% 9.9 10.4 10.9 11.5 12.0 12.6 13.3 80.6 TULCEA 2.32% 8.2 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 66.8 VALCEA 2.62% 9.3 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.3 11.8 12.4 75.4 VASLUI 2.67% 9.4 9.9 10.4 10.9 11.5 12.1 12.7 76.9 VRANCEA 2.45% 8.7 9.1 9.6 10.0 10.5 11.1 11.6 70.5 TOTAL 100 353.6 371.3 389.9 409.4 429.8 451.3 473.9 2879.3 111 Chapter VI: Proposed Monitoring System for the PNDL Process Indicators 265. It is important to view the PNDL in the context of a multitude of pub lic investment programs, not in isolation. In essence, the PNDL is a tool that helps the Government achieve a number of key objectives. As such, the Chancellery of the Prime Minister should be able to monitor and assess the program. In this respect, the following basic process indicators could be considered to ensure the Government keeps track of all its investment programs: Table 33. Proposed PNDL General Process Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline value Annual new projects selected by PNDL No. Projects 3,952 database Annual project completion ratio % Projects 0 (share of completed projects in total on- database going projects) Annual in/out balance RON Projects 0 (value of new projects divided by the value database of completed projects) Annual increase ratio of on-going projects % Projects 0 (the projects value/number at the end of database the current year divided by the number/value of projects at the end of the previous year) 266. These process indicators will provide the Government with a quick snapshot of the PNDL and they can prompt a potential intervention if needed . In addition to these basic indicators, other indicatoprs may be collected, which could show the extent to which the PNDL helps achieve key Government objectives. Performance Indicators 267. Simply having a prioritization system in place is not enough for the PNDL – it is also critical to have a monitoring system that provides a regular assessment of how the prioritization system is actually working. For one, the monitoring system should be able to determine whether output objectives are achieved (e.g. km of roads constructed, number of people benefiting from water and wastewater). Second, it is important to determine whether these public investments have helped engender development at the local level – i.e. to determine whether they have actually made a dent. Obviously, the first desiderate is easier to achieve than the second. Development is a product of a multitude of factors, and it is hard to determine how much of the development of a locality was made possible by a specific public investment, and how much can be attributed to other factors. Nonetheless, 112 it is important to measure whether development is actually taking place in a locality where public funds have been invested as this will inform the choice of public investments that could be taken on in the future – it makes no sense to continue an investment that has no obvious impact. 268. Performance indicators can be both general in nature and sector specific. Below we include proposals both for general performance indicators and sector-specific performance indicators. General Performance Indicators Table 34. Proposed PNDL General Output Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline year value Number of projects Number Projects 0 2014 financed database Volume of investments Mil. RON Projects 0 2014 database Number of Number Projects 0 2014 administrative units that database benefited from PNDL funds Beneficiary population Number Projects 0 2014 database Absorption of PNDL % Projects 0 2014 Funds database General Impact Indicators 269. In terms of overall performance of the PNDL, there are two composite indexes that can be used by MDRAP:  The Territorial Development Index, which is now being developed by MDRAP;  The Local Human Development Index, which was developed by Prof. Dumitru Sandu. These composite indicators can be used to assess the effectiveness of all types of PNDL investments, and they make more sense than sector specific impact indicators, such “Increase in life expectancy”, “Decrease in early school leaving rate”, “Number of jobs created”. Given the small size of PNDL projects, it makes more sense to focus primarily on output indicators, and the Territorial Development Index and the Local Human Development Index measure the overall performance of public investments done in a particular locality. 270. The Territorial Development Index (TDI) is a composite measure that assesses the general need for infrastructure investments at the locality level. The map below provides a snapshot of the TDI for 2011. 113 Figure 23. The Territorial Development Index for 2011 271. The Local Human Development Index (LHDI) assesses the overall development of a locality and is discussed in more detail in Annex H. The map below provides a snapshot of the LHDI for 2011. As can be seen from the two maps, there is a strong correlation between the TDI and LHDI. 272. The computation of the TDI and LHDI requires Census data, which is only collected every ten years. This unfortunately makes a year-to-year monitoring more difficult. In Annex 24 of the Identification of Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, the World Bank has proposed an adaptation of the LHDI methodology to enable a yearly computation of the index, not just at the time of the Census. This can allow the MRDPA to identify which localities have developed, where, and to try to adjust the mix of public investments to put the poor performers on a development path. 114 Figure 24. The Local Human Development Index for 2011 Road Performance Indicators 273. Road performance indicators should be kept simple and should be coordinated with the performance indicators used by ROP 2014-2020 and PNDR 2014-2020. The easier it is to collect these indicators, the easier they will be to monitor. Table 35. County Roads Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Length of rehabilitated / Kilometer Projects 2013 modernized county roads database Number of people benefiting Number Prioritization 2014 within a 5 km buffer of the criteria (using road NIS data) Share of county roads that are % Projects 2014 rehabilitated/modernized database and NIS Share of county roads in good % Projects 2014 condition database and NIS 115 Table 36. Communal Roads Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Length of rehabilitated / Kilometer Projects database 2013 modernized communal roads Number of people, by Number NIS 2014 commune, benefiting from investments Share of communal roads % Projects database 2014 rehabilitated / modernized and NIS Share of communal roads in % Projects database 2014 good condition and NIS Water and Wastewater Performance Indicators 274. The Drinking Water Directive, the Urban Wastewater Directive, and the Water Framework Directive, provide guidelines not only for identifying prioritization criteria, but also for identifying performance indicators. The following performance indicators can be considered in this sense: Table 37. Water Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure Data source Baseline Baseline Target unit value year value Number of localities with more Number Projects database 2014 than 50 people that have benefited from investment Number of additional people Number Projects database 2014 with access to piped water Share of people with access to % Projects database 2011 piped water and NIS Table 38. Wastewater Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Number of localities with Number Projects database 2014 more than 2,000 people equivalent that have benefited from investment Number of additional people Number Projects database 2014 with access to wastewater collection system Number of additional people Number Projects database 2014 with access to wastewater secondary treatment system Share of people with access to % Projects database 2011 a sewage system and NIS 116 Social Infrastructure Performance Indicators 275. A set of performance indicators is proposed below for the different types of social infrastructure investments: Table 39. Health Infrastructure Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Number of new health centers Number Projects 2014 / pharmacies / other medical database units Number of health centers / Number Projects 2014 pharmacies / other medical database units rehabilitated / modernized / extended / endowed Number of people benefiting Number Projects 2014 from new / improved health database service Share of rural population % Projects 2014 benefiting from basic database and healthcare provision NIS Table 40. Education Infrastructure Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Number of new kindergartens Number Projects 0 2014 / primary schools / secondary database schools / high schools/ professional schools / post- high schools / special schools Number kindergartens / Number Projects 0 2014 primary schools / secondary database schools / high schools/ professional schools / post- high schools / special schools rehabilitated / modernized / extended / endowed Number of people benefiting Number Projects 2014 from new / improved database education infrastructure Table 41. Cultural Infrastructure Performance Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Number of new libraries / Number Projects database 0 2014 museums / theatres / 117 multifunctional cultural centers Number of libraries / Number Projects database 0 2014 museums / theatres / multifunctional cultural centers rehabilitated / modernized / extended / endowed Number of people benefiting Number Projects database 2014 from new / improved cultural infrastructure Share of rural population with % Projects database 2014 access to cultural services and NIS Table 42. Sports Infrastructure Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline Baseline Target value year value Number of new sports bases Number Projects database 0 2014 Number of sports bases Number Projects database 0 2014 rehabilitated / modernized / extended / endowed Number of people benefiting Number Projects database 2014 from new / improved sports infrastructure Share of rural population with % Projects database 2014 access to sports facilities and NIS Monitoring Committee 276. To enable the monitoring process to run smoothly a Monitoring Committee could be established, including both staff of the MRDPA and representatives of the beneficiaries (one representative per county). 277. Ideally, each county councils should establish a Monitoring Team that tracks the implementation of PNDL projects, collects and reports performance indicators. In many cases, such teams have already been formed to monitor the implementation of county development strategies, and these teams could also take on the role of monitoring the implementation of PNDL projects within the county. 118 Figure 25. Proposed PNDL Monitoring Framework 278. The PNDL Monitoring Committee should ensure the collection and analysis of performance indicators from all counties, to ensure a complete image at the national level. The Monitoring Committee should also prepare Monitoring Reports assessing the performance of the program and making recommendations on how implementation could be improved. Such a report should at the very minimum include the following information: - Time period covered by the monitoring activity; - Data sources (or, if required, problems regarding the collection of data); - Actions taken during the monitoring process; - Description of targets achieved and of problems encountered; - Recommendations for program improvement; - Final appreciation regarding the progress in the implementation of the program. 279. Since the PNDL focuses primarily on a large number of small projects spread all over the country, it is critical to have a strong M&E system in place . It is also important to enable community oversight and engagement, to ensure that the commitments made are actually carried through. This requires that project related data is made public, and the full process is carried on in a transparent manner, with the community being involved throughout – from the start of the project to actual completion. 280. Basic operations and maintenance issues should also be a corner stone of a proper monitoring system. A large majority of communes have relatively limited resources 119 for covering operation and maintenance costs for completed infrastructure investments. It is therefore important to continuously track their investment portfolio and ensure that they don’t move to far above the FSI threshold. If they do, there is a risk of having the completed infrastructure fall into a vicious cycle of repair, neglect, repair. Monitoring the absorption capacity of PNDL beneficiaries 281. One issue that the proposed Monitoring Committee could continu ally monitor is the financial sustainability of potential beneficiaries of PNDL funds. More specifically, it should be ensured that funds are allocated to public authorities that can subsequently cover the operation and maintenance costs of the new investments they will do with those funds. For a new health care facility, or a new school, a local authority will need to pay electricity, heating, salaries of personnel, and general maintenance of the building. If too many infrastructure investments are taken on, there is a risk of not being able to cover those costs. 282. The Financial Sustainability Index, presented earlier, and discussed in more detail in Annex 11, is a tool developed to help central managing authorities allocate funds in more financially sustainable manner, and to allow public authorities to more efficiently identify priorities. Ideally, central authorities should track capital investments done by sub- national authorities every year, to ensure that they do not over-stretch themselves. Thus, if a local authority, for example, seeks funding for a particular investment project, but has already spent more than the designated prudent capital expenditure margin for a programming period, then consideration should be given to whether the new project can or should be financed. 120 Annex 1: Simplified Criteria of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 88/2013 to Prioritize Projects for the 2014 Budget, by Stage of the Project Cycle Principles Criteria for Prioritizing New Projects Criteria for Prioritizing Existing Projects Principle 1: 1.1: Are the project’s goals and 1.1: Are the project’s goals Appropriateness of objectives relevant? [10 points] and objectives still the Project in the 1.2: Does the project represent a relevant? [10 points] Policy Context [20 high priority at the current national 1.2: Does the project points] strategies? [10 points] represent a high priority at the current national strategies? [10 points] Principle 2: 2.1: Is the project economically 2.1: Is the project still Economic and Social justified through (pre)-feasibility economically justified? [10 Justification [40 for study? [15 points] points] New / 30 for Existing 2.2: Is the project socially justified?2.2: Is the project still projects] [10 points] socially justified? [10 points] 2.3: Is the environmental impact of 2.3: Is and was the the project acceptable? [10 points] environmental impact of the 2.4: Are the terms of the project acceptable? [5 acquisition/procurement designed points] competitive? [5 points] 2.4: Are/Were the terms of the acquisition/procurement competitive? [5 points] Principle 3: 3.1: Is the total funding requirement 3.1: Is and was the total Affordability and for the project consistent with a funding requirement for the Financial realistic forecast of forward resource project consistent with a Sustainability [20 availability in the sector/sub-sector? realistic forecast of forward points] [10 points] resource availability in the 3.2: Does the total funding/financing sector/sub-sector? [10 require domestic Government co- points] financing? [5 points] 3.2: Does the total 3.3: Are credible arrangements in funding/financing require place for meeting the resulting domestic Government co- operating and maintenance costs on financing? [5 points] a sustainable basis once the project 3.3: Are credible is completed? [5 points] arrangements in place for meeting the resulting operating and maintenance 121 costs on a sustainable basis once the project is completed? [5 points] Principle 4: 4.1: How well is the current 4.1: How well is the current Implementation preparation of the project? [10 preparation of the project? Arrangements/Imple points] [10 points] mentation 4.2: Have appropriate indicators of 4.2: Is there an identified Performance [20 for project progress and performance project management body New/30 for Existing been defined and suitable accountable for points] monitoring and evaluation implementation progress? arrangements been designed? [5 [5 points] points] 4.3: How well is the current 4.3: Is there an identified project project management management body accountable for performing? [15 points] implementation progress? [5 points] Auxiliary Principle A.1: How near is the project (Only for Existing): in terms of time remaining Nearness to (how many years left) or Completion physical status (how many [additional points] implementation progress left)? [additional 5 points] A.2: What would be the costs involved in restructuring or closing the project? [additional -5 points] 122 Annex 2: PNDL – Annex no. 2 to Methodological Norms (Annex no. 2 to County Council / Mayor's Office /Intercommunity Development Methodological Association............. Norms) County ........ Date……… Request for including the investment objective "......................" from the sub-programme "...................." in the National Programme for Local Development - lei- [currency] INFORMATION General information ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE1) Name of the investment objective ……………… Beneficiary administrative-territorial unit of the investment objective ……………… Location of the proposed investment objective ……………… Main technical capacities of the investment objective (in physical units)2) ……………… Total investment value (including VAT) 3) ……………… Total expenditure value that can be financed by the Programme4) ……………… Number of the technical design contract (TD+ED) (no./date) ……………… Value of the technical design contract (TD+ED) (lei, VAT included) ……………… Value of additional acts (lei, VAT included) to the technical design contract ……………… (TD+ED), as the case Number of the works contract (no./date) ……………… Initial value of the works contract (lei, VAT included) ……………… Total value of the works contract, additional acts included (lei, VAT ……………… included) Total disbursed value for the investment objective, of which (lei, VAT ……………… included): - state budget ……………… - local budget ……………… Total needed value for completing/attaining the investment objective, of ……………… which (lei, VAT included): 123 - state budget ……………… - local budget ……………… Physical stage achieved (%) ……………… Commissioning deadline (according to the works contract and additional ……………… acts) 1) shall be filled in with accurate information about the proposed investment objective. 2) example: road length (km) network length (m), surfaces on which the investment is done (m2) etc. 3)the total value of the investment comprises the total disbursed value and the total needed value for completing the investment objective. 4) according to the Methodological Norms. Beneficiary Territorial Administrative Unit…………….. Mayor / President of County Council / President of Intercommunity Development Association Name / Forename……………………. Signature.......... 124 Annex 3: Evaluation Grid for County Roads and Urban Roads (ROP 2007- 2013) 1 The project’s contribution to the achievement of ROP objectives Reference (max. 6 pts.) from AF (Application Form) 1.1. The relevance of the project for the objectives of the Priority Axis and of the Intervention Area (max. 6 pts.) a. County roads 2.3.1  The project ensures the connection to TEN or to the 2.3.2 national network and removes from isolation areas with 2.3.3 potential of development at the level of the region and 2.3.8 where topographical / economic conditions hindered the 2.8 growth of the area. 6 pts. Annex FS  The project does not ensure the connection to TEN or to Annex the national network, but improves links between “Traffic regions and within regions and removes from isolation Study” (if areas with development potential at the level of the not region and where topographical / economic conditions included in hindered the growth of the area. 3 pts. FS) b. Ring roads  The project ensures the taking over of major traffic flows which transit the city and helps facilitate rapid connections between residential areas and functional areas (economic, social etc.). 6 pts.  The project does not ensure the taking over of major traffic flows which transit the city, but helps facilitate rapid connections between residential areas and functional areas (economic, social etc.). 3 pts. c. Urban roads  The project ensures the taking over of the major traffic flows of the city in the direction of the national road crossing the city or in the main direction of connection with this road. 6 pts.  The project ensures the main circulation between the functional areas and the residential area (of housing) and ensures the taking over of traffic flows from the functional areas and directs them towards the connection roads or highways. 3 pts. 125 1.2. The extent to which the project contributes to the increase of 2.3.1 traffic safety (max. 6 pts.) 2.3.2 a. County roads 2.3.3  The project contributes to the increase of traffic 2.3.4 safety between localities. 6 pts. 2.3.5 b. Ring roads 2.3.8  The project contributes to the increase of traffic 2.8 safety inside the locality and outside the locality. 6 Annex FS pts. Annex c. Urban roads “Traffic  The project contributes to the increase of traffic Study” (if safety inside the locality (ex. pedestrian areas, bicycle not lanes, shelters for public transport etc.). 6 pts. included in FS) 1.3 The extent to which the project contributes to the reduction of 2.3.1 travel time by streamlining traffic (max. 6 pct.) 2.3.2 a. County roads 2.3.3  The project contributes to the reduction of travel 2.8 time related to the circulation between localities. Annex FS 6 pts. Annex b. Ring roads “Traffic  The project contributes to the reduction of travel Study” (if time related to the circulation inside the locality and not outside the locality. 6 pts. included in c. Urban roads FS)  The project contributes to the reduction of travel time related to the circulation inside the locality. 6 pts. 1.4. The importance of the project for the region (max. 6 pts.) Annex FS a. Economic rate of return >= 5.5% and Benefit-cost ratio >=1. 6 pts. b. Economic rate of return < 5.5% and/or Benefit-cost ration <1. 0 pts. 2 Quality, maturity and sustainability of the project 2.1. Degree of preparedness/maturity of the project (max. 6 pts.) 3.4 a. The applicant has conducted the public procurement 2.3.6 procedure for the implementation of the execution project Annex FS (EP), and the EP is scheduled to be completed within 3 months from the submission of AF; the applicant has the necessary permits, and the land is already purchased (if applicable). 6 pts. b. The applicant initiated the procurement procedure, the EP is 126 scheduled to be completed within 6 months from the submission of AF; the process of obtaining the necessary permits is ongoing, the land is already purchased (if applicable). 3 pts. 2.2. The implementation methodology of the project (max. 6 pts.) 2.3 a. The objectives of the project are clear and can be achieved 2.4 in view of the project’s implement ation. Project activities 2.5 are clearly identified, detailed and closely linked within the 2.6 implementation timeline to the tasks of the project team 2.7 members and to the procurement planning . Project Annex FS outcomes and output indicators are linked to the activities, and targets are feasible. Risks and appropriate risk management mechanisms are identified. 6 pts. b. Objectives can be partially achieved in view of the project’s implementation. Project activities are identified, detailed and partially linked within the implementation timeline to the tasks of the project team members and partially linked to the procurement planning . Project outcomes and output indicators are partially linked to the activities, and targets are partially feasible. Risks are identified, but risk management mechanisms are ineffective. 3 pts. c. The objectives of the project are not realistic in view of the project’s implementation. Project activities are identified, but are neither linked within the implementation timeline to the tasks of the project team members, nor to the procurement planning . Project outcomes and output indicators are weakly linked to the activities, and targets are not feasible. Risks or risk management mechanisms are not identified. 1 pt. 2.3. Documentation coherence (Feasibility study) (max. 6 pts.) Annex FS a. The data are sufficient, accurate and justified. The analysis of alternatives is comprehensive. The estimation of the operating costs is realistic and coherent with the assumptions made. Corrections (related to externalities, taxation etc.) were properly applied in the economic analysis. Rough estimates (general and itemized) are clear, complete, realistic and closely related to the design parts. The parts of the design are complete and comply with the relevant written parts. 6 pts. b. The data are sufficient and justified to a large extent. The analysis of alternatives is minimal. The estimation of the operating costs is largely realistic and/or related to the 127 assumptions made. Corrections (related to externalities, taxation etc.) were partially and/or wrongly applied in the economic analysis. Rough estimates (general and itemized) are not fully related to the parts of the design. The designs are not complete and do not fully correspond to the written parts. 3 pts . c. The data are insufficient and/or weakly justified. Alternatives are not analyzed. The estimation of the operating costs is unrealistic and/or uncorrelated with the assumptions made. Corrections (related to externalities, taxation etc.) were not applied in the economic analysis. Rough estimates (general and itemized) are not correlated with the design parts. The designs are not complete and do not correspond to the written parts. 1 pt. 2.4. The technical solution (max 6 pts.) Annex FS a. The technical solution proposed through the project fully addresses the purpose/objectives of this project. 6 pts. b. The technical solution proposed through the project partially addresses the purpose/objectives of this project. 3 pts. c. The technical solution proposed through the project addresses to a small extent the purpose/objectives of this project. 1 pt. 2.5. The project needs co-financing from non-reimbursable funds (max. 6 Annex FS pts.) a. FIRR  5% and FNPV < 0. 6 pts. b. FIRR > 5%. 0 pts. 2.6. The budget of the project (max. 6 pts.) a. Budget is complete and correlated with the referred 4.1 activities, with the allocated/estimated resources and with 4.2 the general and itemized rough estimates. Costs are realistic Annex FS (correctly estimated) and necessary for the project’s implementation. 6 pts. b. Budget is complete and partially correlated with the referred activities, with the allocated/estimated resources and with the general and itemized rough estimates. Costs are partially realistic (there are under/overestimated budget lines). 3 pts. c. Budget is incomplete and uncorrelated with the referred activities, with the allocated/estimated resources and with the general and itemized rough estimates. Costs are largely unrealistic (the majority of the budget lines are under/overestimated). 1 pt. 128 2.7. Environmental protection and energy efficiency 38 (max. 6 pts.) 3.2 a. County roads Annex FS  The project implements measures to improve environmental quality and energy efficiency. 6 pts.  The project complies with the minimum legal requirements on environmental protection and energy efficiency. 3 pts. b. Ring roads  The project implements measures to improve environmental quality and energy efficiency. 6 pts.  The project complies with the minimum legal requirements on environmental protection and energy efficiency. 3 pts. c. Urban roads  The project implements measures to improve environmental quality and energy efficiency. 6 pts.  The project complies with the minimum legal requirements on environmental protection and energy efficiency. 3 pts. 2.8. Equal opportunities and non-discrimination 39 (max. 6 pts.) 3.1 a. The applicant has a non-discrimination policy that is Annex FS implemented in the project; mechanisms to ensure equal opportunities in the procurement of goods/services are included too. The applicant identifies potential discrimination issues in the context of the project and implements the mechanisms that solve them. The project envisages the creation of facilities/adaption of the structure in order to ensure access for people with disabilities. 6 pts. b. The applicant identifies potential discrimination issues in the context of the project and envisages a series of actions to solve them. The project envisages the creation of facilities/the adaption of the structure in order to ensure the access for people with disabilities. 3 pts. c. The applicant fulfills the minimum legal requirements in this field. 1 pt. 2.9. The applicant’s capacity to monitor the project implementation 2.4 (max. 6 pts.) a. The applicant has a clear strategy for monitoring the project 38 It is recommended that the project addresses public transportation and alternative means of transportation (bike lanes, safer crossing facilities for pedestrians, etc.) and technologies that contribute to energy conservation. 39 It is recommended that the project addresses access ways for handicapped / disabled persons. 129 implementation; there is a clear division of tasks in this regard, clear procedures and a clear timeline of monitoring activities. Within the applicant’s organization/ within each partner organization or member organization of an IDA, as the case, there are procedures for checking/supervising the work of the project team. 6 pts. b. The applicant has envisioned a series of procedures to monitor the project implementation, as well as a timeline of monitoring activities, but there is no clear strategy. At the level of the applicant’s organization/of each partner organizations or member organization of IDA, as the case, there are no specific procedures for checking/supervising the work of the project team. 1 pt. 2.10. Project sustainability after the end of non-reimbursable funding 2.11 (max. 6 pts.) 2.12 a. The applicant proves a strong capacity to ensure the maintenance and operation of road infrastructure after the end of the project and of the non-reimbursable funding. 6 pts. b. The applicant proves a relative capacity to ensure the maintenance and operation of road infrastructure after the end of the project and the non-reimbursable funding (the applicant depends largely on external sources in order to maintain the structure functional). 3 pts. Each sub-criterion above will be scored from 0 to 6. With respect to projects, two to four hypothetical situations are provided, each of them corresponding to a score (0, 1, 3, or 6). These hypothses are reference points in the process of technical and financial evaluation of the project examined. The effective scoring process with respect to a given sub-criterion will consider whether the project fits between these reference points. Thus, one decimal scores can be assigned. The score for each specific criterion reresents the arithmetic mean of the scores obtained for the sub-criteria under the respective criterion. The project’s final score represents the average of the scores obtained for the main criteria. After the technical and financial evaluation, only the projects that get a minimum score of 3.5 qualify. If a project scores 0 points with respect to at least one of the sub-criteria, it will be automatically rejected. 130 Annex 4: Evaluation Grid for Axis 3 – 3.1 Health infrastructure (outpatient departments) and 3.4. Education Infrastructure (Compulsory schools) (ROP 2007-2013) 1 The project’s contribution to the achievement of ROP objectives (max. 6 pts.) 1.1. The relevance of the project for the objectives of the Priority Axis and of the DMI Intervention Area (max. 6 pts.) 3.1. a. The beneficiaries will be provided with new medical services, there is estimated a reduction in the number of redirected patients due to the lack of capacity/endowment, there is estimated a decrease in the necessary time for diagnosis and/or treatments. 6 pts. b. There is estimated a reduction in the number of redirected patients due to the lack of capacity/endowment, there is estimated a decrease in the necessary time for diagnosis and/or treatments. 3 pts. 1.1. The relevance of the project for the objectives of the Priority Axis and of the DMI Intervention Area (max. 6 pts.) 3.4. a. The project proves high capacity to contribute to the improvement of education quality and human capital development. The project contributes to the full endowment of the school with IT equipment and/or connectivity to broadband network and to a high increase in the level of endowment with didactical equipment. 6 pts. b. The project proves moderate capacity to contribute to the improvement of education quality and human capital development. The project contributes to the endowment of the school with IT equipment and/or connectivity to broadband network and to a small increase in the level of endowment with didactical equipment. 3 pts. c. The project proves reduced capacity to contribute to the improvement of education quality and human capital development. The project contributes to the increase in the level of endowment of the school with IT and didactical equipment and connectivity to internet network. 1 pts. 1.2. The extent to which there is a real need for education infrastructure or a problem DMI in this field, in the development region / county / locality in which the project is 3.4. implemented (max. 6 pts.) a. The demographic and economic evolution of the locality/county/region (current situation and 10 year prognosis) justifies to a great extent the proposed investment. Usage average level of the school is of minimum 70%. The school is located in rural area and/or in a community in which the 131 disadvantaged population represents 50%. 6 pts. b. The demographic and economic evolution of the locality/county/region (current situation and 10 year prognosis) justifies to a moderate extent the proposed investment. Usage average level of the school is of between 50- 70%. The school is located in rural area and/or in a community in which the disadvantaged population represents 25-50%. 3 pts. 1.2. The importance of the project for the region (max. 6 pts.) DMI a. The outpatient department serves more than one locality and EIRR/C >= 3.1. 5.5% and ENPV >=0. 6 pts. b. The outpatient department serves one locality and EIRR/C >= 5.5% and ENPV >=0. 3 pts. c. EIRR/C < 5.5% and ENPV <0. 0 pts. 1.3. The importance of the project for the region (max. 6 pts.) DMI a. EIRR/C >= 5.5% and ENPV >=0. 6 pts. 3.4. b. EIRR/C < 5.5% and ENPV <0. 0 pts. 2 Quality, maturity and sustainability of the project 2.1. Degree of preparedness / maturity of the project (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The applicant has conducted the public procurement procedure for the implementation of the execution project (EP), and the EP is scheduled to be completed within 3 months from the submission of AF; the applicant has the necessary permits, and the land is already purchased (if applicable). 6 pts . b. The applicant initiated the procurement procedure, the EP is scheduled to be completed within 6 months from the submission of AF; the process of obtaining the necessary permits is ongoing, the land is already purchased (if applicable). 3 pts . 2.2. The implementation methodology of the project (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The objectives of the project are clear and can be achieved in view of the project’s implementation. Project activities are clearly identified, detailed and closely linked within the implementation timeline to the tasks of the project team members and to the procurement planning . Project outcomes and output indicators are linked to the activities, and targets are feasible. Risks and appropriate risk management mechanisms are identified. 6 pts. b. Objectives can be partially achieved in view of the project’s implementation. Project activities are identified, detailed and partially linked within the implementation timeline to the tasks of the project team members and partially linked to the procurement planning . Project outcomes and output indicators are partially linked to the activities, and targets are partially feasible. Risks are identified, but risk management 132 mechanisms are ineffective. 3 pts. c. The objectives of the project are not realistic in view of the project’s implementation. Project activities are identified, but are neither linked within the implementation timeline to the tasks of the project team members, nor to the procurement planning. Project outcomes and output indicators are weakly linked to the activities, and targets are not feasible. Risks or risk management mechanisms are not identified. 1 pt. 2.3. Documentation coherence (Feasibility study) (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The data are sufficient, accurate and justified. The analysis of alternatives is comprehensive. The estimation of the operating costs is realistic and coherent with the assumptions made. Corrections (related to externalities, taxation etc.) were properly applied in the economic analysis. Rough estimates (general and itemized) are clear, complete, realistic and closely related to the design parts. The parts of the design are complete and comply with the relevant written parts. 6 pts. b. The data are sufficient and justified to a large extent. The analysis of alternatives is minimal. The estimation of the operating costs is largely realistic and/or related to the assumptions made. Corrections (related to externalities, taxation etc.) were partially and/or wrongly applied in the economic analysis. Rough estimates (general and itemized) are not fully related to the parts of the design. The designs are not complete and do not fully correspond to the written parts. 3 pts . c. The data are insufficient and/or weakly justified. Alternatives are not analyzed. The estimation of the operating costs is unrealistic and/or uncorrelated with the assumptions made. Corrections (related to externalities, taxation etc.) were not applied in the economic analysis. Rough estimates (general and itemized) are not correlated with the design parts. The designs are not complete and do not correspond to the written parts. 1 pt. 2.4. The technical solution (max 6 pts.) Both a. The technical solution proposed through the project fully addresses the purpose/objectives of this project and respects the newest technical standards in this field. 6 pts. b. The technical solution proposed through the project partially addresses the purpose/objectives of this project and respects the newest technical standards in this field. 3 pts. c. The technical solution proposed through the project addresses to a small extent the purpose/objectives of this project and respects the newest technical standards in this field. 1 pt. 2.5. The project needs co-financing from non-reimbursable funds (max. 6 pts.) Both a. FIRR/C <= 5% and FNPV/C < 0. 6 pts. 133 b. FIRR/C > 5% and FNPV/C >=0. 0 pts. 2.6. The budget of the project (max. 6 pts.) Both a. Budget is complete and correlated with the referred activities, with the allocated/estimated resources and with the general and itemized rough estimates. Costs are realistic (correctly estimated) and necessary for the project’s implementation. 6 pts. b. Budget is complete and partially correlated with the referred activities, with the allocated/estimated resources and with the general and itemized rough estimates. Costs are partially realistic (there are under/overestimated budget lines). 3 pts. c. Budget is incomplete and uncorrelated with the referred activities, with the allocated/estimated resources and with the general and itemized rough estimates. Costs are largely unrealistic (the majority of the budget lines are under/overestimated). 1 pt. 2.7. Environmental protection and sustainable development (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The project implements measures to improve environmental quality and sustainable development. 6 pts. b. The project complies with the minimum legal requirements on environmental protection and energy efficiency. 3 pts. 2.8. Equal opportunities and non-discrimination (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The applicant has a non-discrimination policy that is implemented in the project; mechanisms to ensure equal opportunities in the procurement of goods/services are included too. The applicant identifies potential discrimination issues in the context of the project and implements the mechanisms that solve them. The project envisages the creation of facilities/adaption of the structure in order to ensure access for people with disabilities. 6 pts. b. The applicant identifies potential discrimination issues in the context of the project and envisages a series of actions to solve them. The project envisages the creation of facilities/the adaption of the structure in order to ensure the access for people with disabilities. 3 pts. c. The applicant fulfills the minimum legal requirements in this field. 1 pt. 2.9. Information society (max. 6 pts.) Only a. The project implements modern information systems, modern information for solutions and applications. 6 pts. DMI b. The projects implements minimum standards in what concerns IT 3.4. equipment. 3 pts. 2.10. The applicant’s capacity to monit or the project implementation (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The applicant has a clear strategy for monitoring the project 134 implementation; there is a clear division of tasks in this regard, clear procedures and a clear timeline of monitoring activities. Within the applicant’s organization/of each partner organizations or member organization of IDA, as the case, there are procedures for checking/supervising the work of the project team. 6 pts. b. The applicant has envisioned a series of procedures to monitor the project implementation, as well as a timeline of monitoring activities, but there is no clear strategy. At the level of the applicant’s organization/of each partner organizations or member organization of IDA, as the case, there are no specific procedures for checking/supervising the work of the project team. 1 pt. 2.11. Project sustainability after the end of non-reimbursable funding (max. 6 pts.) Both a. The applicant proves a strong capacity to ensure the maintenance and operation of road infrastructure after the end of the project and of the non- reimbursable funding (the cumulated cash flow is positive every year). 6 pts. b. The applicant proves a relative capacity to ensure the maintenance and operation of road infrastructure after the end of the project and the non- reimbursable funding (the cumulated cash flow is positive every year, but there are years in which it is very close to 0). 3 pts. c. The cumulated cash flow is negative in at least one year during the projected period. 0 pts. 135 Annex 5: Project Checklist for SOP Environment 2007-2013—Water and Wastewater Projects Project title: Registration number: Applicant: CRITERION YES/NO Application form (with annexes) is written in a copy (paper or electronic format). The letter of approval and submission of the application, whereby the applicant assumes responsibility for the accuracy of the information is signed by the president of IDA and by the RO director. Application form (with annexes) is numbered. ADMISSIBILITY Application form is submitted in printed format (not handwritten). Application form (including annexes) is written in English or Romanian as appropriate. Application form complies with the standard format of the Applicant’s Guide (AG). All chapters of the application form are filled in with the required information. The application form includes all attachments (according to specific instructions from the Applicant's Guide). 136 CRITERION YES/NO Eligibility of the applicant The applicant belongs to the category of beneficiaries mentioned in SOP. The applicant meets all the institutional, legal, and financial conditions according to the Applicant’s Guide. - The applicant meets all the institutional, legal, and financial conditions according to the Applicant’s Guide. The Regional Operator (RO) and the Intercommunity Development Association (IDA) are established according to the law (for water sector projects). - The documents confirming the establishment of the Intercommunity Development Association - LC and CC decisions, statutes, constitutive act, certificate of registration with the Register of Associations and Foundations, are attached. - Where appropriate, the documents confirming the establishment of the Regional Operator - LC and CC decisions, constitutive act, certificate of registration with the Trade Register Office, action plan aimed at handing ELIGIBILITY over the services to RO while incorporating IDA's commitment to establish a policy of common tariffs on the long term) are attached. - Where appropriate, the Common Contract for Service Management Delegation (including annexes) is signed by IDA and RO. Decisions regarding the delegation of the management of water and wastewater services are attached. - The documents related to the Project Implementation Unit (establishment decision, PIU members’ CVs, or job description) are attached. - There is evidence for ensuring the sources and the mechanism for project co-financing (letters of intent from commercial banks showing the interest to co-finance the project, decisions of LC/CC showing the co-financing mechanism corresponding to the local budgets, as appropriate). - The Eligibility Statement and the Commitment Statement are attached to the Application form in the recommended format. Eligibility of the project - The project falls within the categories of operations/activities mentioned in SOP Environment. - The project’s implementation period is included between 01/01/2007 and 12/31/2015 - The project meets all the specific conditions set out in the Applicant’s Guide as appropriate (coverage, population, minimum value etc.) 137 - The project complies with the legislation on gender equality, sustainable development, public procurement, information and publicity, and state aid (European policies and horizontal themes40 ). - The project for which funding is requested from SOP Environment receives funding from other public funds. - The project’s connection with other projects financed through EU or national funds is described in the project proposal. - The project complies with national legislation related to the eligibility of expenditure. - The land corresponding to SOP Environment investments are in the property/possession of public authorities or are available for the project’s implementation as appropriate. Maxim Mini Score Issues to be considered in the Criteria um mum given evaluation / Comments and score score justifications A - RELEVANCE 10 6 A1 – Contribution to SOP 4 2 Environment objectives Does the project contribute to the Contribution to SOP achievement of one or more EVALUATION Environment objectives objectives of the SOP Environment? Improvement of Does the project have a significant environmental impact on improving conditions environmental conditions? A2 – Contribution to compliance with 3 2 legislation and European directives  Is the legal framework described Legal framework enough?  Are there clear correlations 40 European policies / horizontal themes are priorities/policies accepted by all Member States of the European Union and should be reflected in all Community initiatives. These include: promotion of equality and non- discrimination; sustainable development, environmental protection and improvement; information technology; procurement. 138 between the legal framework and the project’s objectives?  Do the projects refer to the way Compliance with the provisions of the relevant relevant directives, directives and implementation regulations, and strategic plans are considered? documents  Is the compliance with the provisions of the relevant directives, regulations, and strategic documents ensured?  Is there enough information The current level of regarding both the current compliance compliance degree of the services covered by the project with the quality standards, and the contribution of the project to ensuring compliance?  Is there a list of priority Priority investments list investments that would ensure compliance with the legislative requirements and that would fall into the local development plans? A3 – Impact of the 3 2 project Scope of the project  Is there a clear delineation of the project’s scope and size?  Is there sufficient information Beneficiary on the beneficiary equivalent population (overall and by category) of the project?  Data with regard to the current and future situation Is there sufficient information on the current situation and the development previsions/trends for the years to come? Impact assessment  Dimensioning the proposed investments Is the need for investment clearly assessed in terms of capacity, expansion, rehabilitation, and improvement to the existing 139 operating system? Strengths: Weaknesses: Total score for the relevance of the project: B - MATURITY 10 6 B1 – Technical aspects 4 2  Are the proposed measures clearly identified in accordance Standards and with the technical standards sustainability under the relevant directives?  Was the sustainability of each proposed measure considered? Technical feasibility  Is the project proposal clear, coherent, realistic, and feasible (in terms of proposed operations, deadlines)? Expected results  Are the project results clearly presented?  Are these results measurable? Clear objectives  Are the project objectives clear, achievable, and easy to check? Key deficiencies  Is there a direct link between the identified problems, the project objectives, the proposed actions and the estimated results?  Is the project justified based on Justification the identified deficiencies and necessities? Quantification of  Are the operations proposed for proposed measures funding clearly described and quantified? Specification of technical  Are the technical resources for resources project implementation indicated? 140 Efficiency of the project  Is the project efficient? B2 – Financial aspects 3 2 Economic viability  Is the project economically viable? Presentation of financial  Are the financial resources for resources the project implementation indicated? Funding mechanism  Is there a funding mechanism which distinguishes between the applicant’s own funds and co- financing sources? Budget proposal  Does the budget proposal correspond to the operations described in the technical part?  Is the budget proposal broken down by category of expenditure, transparent and coherent? Financial analysis  Are the recommended values in the financial and economic analysis used? - Reference period 30 years - Financial discount rate 5% - Social discount rate 5.5 % - The affordability level of the services (not to exceed 4% of the income of the poorest 10% of households) The “polluter pays”  Is the “polluter pays” princ iple principle applied? Description of the tariff  Is the tariff system described? system Sensitivity analysis  Is there a sensitivity analysis presented? Risk analysis  Is there a risk analysis presented? B3 – Project implementation 3 2 mechanism Institutional aspects  Were the institutional aspects corresponding to project 141 implementation sufficiently presented? Planning of activities  Is there a planning of the proposed activities?  Is this planning realistic? Description of potential  Are potential difficulties related difficulties to project implementation included and risk mitigation or elimination measures present? Strengths: Weaknesses: Total score for the maturity of the project: Is the project accepted? YES NO Comments: 142 Annex 6: Evaluation Grid for Development of Rural Areas (PNDR 2007- 2013) Number Selection Criteria Points 1. Rural localities that did not receive any previous community support for similar investment Points are given only if no other similar investment has been financed in the same locality (in case a commune applies in the name of one or several component villages for an investment similar to that for which it previously obtained European funding, but for another/other component village/s, the respective commune does not receive any points; in the case of IDA, the 10 association receives points only if none of the communes in which the investment is made did not previously benefit from other similar investments). Explanatory note: This criterion will be scored notwithstanding the category of beneficiary. Notwithstanding the category of beneficiary, in the case of integrated projects, this criterion will be scored according to the main action of the project (road; water and sewage, electricity, gas, transfer stations). 2. Rural localities from regions with high degree of poverty Maximum 10 - localities with high degree of poverty (poverty rate 60% - 10 89.6%)........... - localities with medium degree of poverty (poverty rate 40% - 7 59.9%)............ - localities with small degree of poverty (poverty rate <40%)......... 5 The scoring of this criterion will be made according to the List of rural localities with high degrees of poverty. The List is annexed to the Applicant’s Guide. Points are given only if the locality is identified in the List of localities with high degree of poverty, the score being established according to the poverty degree that belongs to the respective locality (in the case of a newly established commune, the degree of poverty of the commune from which it was separated will be taken into account; in the case of a commune 143 split from a city, it will not receive points; in the case of an IDA, the component commune with the highest degree of poverty if the respective commune is a beneficiary of the main component of the project). Explanatory note: This criterion will be scored notwithstanding the category of beneficiary. 3. Projects that fit into a local or county development strategy Points will be given only if the applicant shows an address from the County Council / Regional Development Agency Or The investment can be found in the purpose and objectives of the 5 respective IDA establishment (if the case). Points are given only if an Address issued by the County Council / Regional Development Agency and confirming that the investment fits in a local, county or regional strategy is annexed. Explanatory note: This criterion will be scored notwithstanding the category of beneficiary. 4. Integrated investment projects An integrated project with a commune as beneficiary is considered to be the investment that aims at combining within the same project at least 2 actions from the same component or from different components of the same measure, as well as if the cumulated value of the secondary components represent at least 10% from the total eligible value of the integrated project. An integrated project with an IDA as beneficiary is considered to be the investment that aims at combining within the same 5 project at least 2 actions from the same component or from different components of the same measure, and the cumulated value of the secondary components represents 10% of the total eligible value of the integrated project, as well as if the action that has the greater value of the total eligible value of the integrated project serves totally or partially the population from at least two communes from the IDA. The scoring of this criterion will be done only if it is present and proved in the Feasibility Study. 144 Explanatory note: This criterion will be scored notwithstanding the category of beneficiary. 5. Investment projects in the water / wastewater infrastructure in rural localities between 2,000 and 10,000 population equivalent (p.e.) identified through the Regional Master Plans, but which are not financed by SOP Environment In the case of an integrated project, this criterion will be scored only if the water/wastewater investment has the greater value within the infrastructure component of the project. Points are given only if the project complies simultaneously with 4 conditions: - to be a project for water / wastewater (the proposed investment has to aim at implementing of a functional water / wastewater system) - to be implemented in localities with at least 2,000 inhabitants 15 equivalent persons and up to 10,000 inhabitants equivalent persons (in the case of IDA, all the component communes have to fulfill this condition) - the commune / the group of communes must be identified in the Regional Master plan - the project should not be financed through SOP Environment (in the case of IDA, none of the component communes in which the investment is made should benefit from funding via SOP Environment) Explanatory note: In the case of newly established communes, these have to fulfill the four criteria mentioned above; the Intermediate Body of SOP Environment offers information related to the equivalent population of these communes. 6. Investment projects in the road infrastructure that ensures the connection with the main road ways (county and national roads) and with other main transport ways (railway and fluvial) The scoring of this criterion will be done only if it is present and 25 proved in the Feasibility Study. In the case of an integrated project, this criterion will be scored only if the road investment has the majority value within the 145 infrastructure component of the project. 7. Investment projects in water infrastructure in the areas where water in insufficient or in the areas with high incidence of drought hazard The scoring of this criterion will be done only if it is present and proved with statistical data in the Feasibility Study. In the case of an integrated project, this criterion will be scored only if the water / wastewater investment has the majority value within the infrastructure component of the project. Points will be given only if the project is for the water supply 5 network, and the locality in which the project will be implemented is on the List of localities with high aridity index or the project includes in the annex a Notice issued by the National Administration Romanian Waters, certifying the water insufficiency in the respective area (in the case of IDA, all the communes in which the water supply investment is made must be on the list of the localities with high aridity index or to show in the annex of the project a Notice issued by the National Administration Romanian Waters, certifying the water insufficiency in the respective localities). 8. Investment projects in water / wastewater infrastructure for the areas where the water is highly polluted or for the areas where the groundwater contains a high concentration of nitrates, affecting the health of the population In the case of an integrated project, this criterion will be scored only if water supply and sanitation has the majority value within the infrastructure component of the project. This criterion will be scored only if it is present and proved with statistical data in the Feasibility Study. 5 Points will be given only if the project is for water/wastewater, and the locality in which the project will be implemented is on the List of vulnerable areas to nitrates or the project includes in the annex an Analysis Bulletin issued by an accredited laboratory, certifying the high degree of pollution in the locality (in the case of IDA all the communes in which the water/wastewater investment is made must be on the list of the areas vulnerable to nitrates or to show an Analysis Bulletin issued by an accredited laboratory, certifying the high degree of 146 pollution in the locality). 9. Investment projects in the social infrastructure Maximum 10 - implemented by NGOs and religious units..................... 10 - implemented by communes, and the functioning of the social 7 infrastructure is ensured in partnership with NGO-s and religious units.............. - implemented by communes and IDA-s............. 5 10. Projects promoting investments in view of the conservation of Maximum the local specificities and of the cultural heritage (traditional 10 architecture, conservation of the material and immaterial patrimony, promotion and organization of local festivals etc.) - implemented by NGO-s, religious units, cultural settlements, 10 natural and legal persons (except for communes and their associations legally established)........... - implemented by communes, and the functioning of the 7 investment objective is ensured in partnership with NGO- s/cultural settlements.............. 5 - implemented by communes and IDA-s. The scoring of this criterion will be done only if it is present and proved in the Feasibility Study........ Points are given according to the category of beneficiary only if direct investments in the following items are envisioned: - renovation, modernization, extension and/or endowment of community centers (with the exception of the community centers that received funds or their funding is ongoing through the “National Priority Program for the establishment of premises for cultural settlements”, according to the Law no. 143/2007), cultural centers/centers for the conservation and promotion of traditions if they shelter the activity of renown artistic groups (music, dance, theatre, painting, sculpture, traditional manufacture art); - fairs, festivals, traditional markets and other local traditional manifestations; 147 - restoration, consolidation and conservation of cultural patrimony objectives – class B (laic architecture – constructions, statutes, archeological sites etc.; religious architecture – churches, belfry etc.); - protection of certain elements of the natural environment (fountains, springs, waterfalls, caves, trees, shrubs, vegetation, etc.) that are identified in the national lists. In case these are not present in the list of protected areas at the national and local levels (Annex 8 at GD 322), depending on the importance of the natural environment element, a Notice from the central public authority for environmental protection or a Decision of the County Council must be annexed to the project. TOTAL 100 148 Annex 7: Triage Grid for Existent Technical Documentation without a Financing Agreement Project Name: ………………………… Identification Code: - Date/Timeline of Project Evaluation: ……… DA NU Clarifications sought (date…..) Answer to clarifications (date…………………………….) Observations and clarifications: 1. 2. 3. Needed Clarifications: No. Clarification 1 2 3 Answer to clarifications No. Answer Observations If Applicant only submits the Technical Project (TP) No. Recommendations for the improvement of the technical project, in accordance with the Technical Project Conformity Observations Checklist (see Annex 8) 1 149 2 3 STEP 1: Basic Legal Requirement YES NO The investment type abides by GEO 28/2013 and MRDPA Ministry Order 1851/2013 STEP 2: Basic Eligibility Criteria YES NO County Road The Project targets the rehabilitation/modernization of a road and/or the development of a bypass. [PNDL funds should primarily be used for the rehabilitation/modernization of existing roads] The value of the county road project is less than 100,000,000 RON. [This is the upper threshold for large strategic projects, which would require an additional review and evaluation by the Ministry of Finance.] Communal Road The Project targets the rehabilitation/modernization of a road and/or the development of a bypass. [PNDL funds should primarily be used for the rehabilitation/modernization of existing roads] The value of the communal road project is less than €1,000,000. Water Project The Project is designed for a locality with more than 50 people. [Water development projects for localities smaller than 50 people do not help with the achievement of the EU Water Acquis and should not be considered.] Wastewater Project The Project is designed for an agglomeration with more than 2,000 people equivalent. The Project aims to expand a current sewage system for a locality with under 2,000 p.e. and involves connecting to an existing wastewater treatment plan. The Project aims to develop a sewage system for a locality with under 150 2,000 p.e. and involves development of a new wastewater treatment plant [Such projects are not considered a priority based on EU acquis targets] Educational Infrastructure The value of the project is less than €500,000. [This is the proposed upper threshold for PNDR 2014-2020 educational infrastructure projects, and PNDL projects should follow this threshold too, to ensure a coordinated approach.] Health Infrastructure The value of the project is less than €500,000. [This is the proposed upper threshold for PNDR 2014-2020 health infrastructure projects, and PNDL projects should follow this threshold too, to ensure a coordinated approach.] Cultural Infrastructure The value of the project is less than €1,000,000. [This is the proposed upper threshold for PNDR 2014-2020 health infrastructure projects, and PNDL projects should follow this threshold too, to ensure a coordinated approach.] Sports Infrastructure The value of the project is less than €665,720. [This is the cost standard for sport infrastructure included in Government Decision 363/2010.] STEP 3: Assessment of Potential Eligibility for EU Operational Programmes YES NO County Roads The Project presupposes the rehabilitation/modernization of a county road that provides direct connection to the TEN-T Comprehensive network. [If proposed county road project does ensure connection to the TEN-T network, it may be eligible for ROP 2014-2020 funding] The Project involves rehabilitation/modernization work of a county road with a total value exceeding RON 100 million [Such projects may be eligible for ROP financing] Water or Wastewater Project The Project is in an agglomeration included in the list of eligible agglomerations for the LI OP 2014-2020. [Such projects should be part 151 of an integrated approach under the LI OP 2014-2020.] Social infrastructure The project envisages the extension/rehabilitation/modernization of existent social infrastructure (educational units, healthcare units, cultural centers, sports facilities). If a new facility will be constructed, the applicant should present the approval of the relevant regional institution (e.g. the School Inspectorate, the Public Health Direction, the County Council) Note: The actual eligibility for an EU Operational Programme (e.g., ROP 2014-2020, LI OP 2014-2020, Rural Development Program 2014-2020) is established only by the Managing Authorities for the respective Operational Programmes. STEP 4: Assessment of Quality of Technical Documentation YES NO Mentions Legal Conformity The documentation abides by the template for the SF/DALI, as mandated by GD 28/2008 (with subsequent addenda). If the documentation includes a detailed technical design, it must also include the FS/DALI Supporting Documentation The documentation includes:  Technical expertise  Geotechnical survey verified for “Af” requirement  Topographical survey Other surveys and studies (as relevant):  Traffic study  Hydrogeological study  Energy efficiency audit  Other required studies Permits and Approvals Documentation includes a valid Urbanism Certificate (UC) UC specifies required permits Documentation includes all required final permits (except the EIA), as specified by the UC. 152 General Breakdown The project’s General Breakdown is correctly developed and updated based on GD no. 28/2008 requirements The documentation describes general breakdown per objects to enable checking whether they abide by the cost standard limits The amounts included in the general breakdown for each chapter/subchapter abide by the maximum limits set by the cost standards from GD 363/2010. Expenditures are presented clearly for the following categories:  Design and civil engineering (FS + permits and approvals documentation; Technical Design + technical verification of project)  Consultancy  Technical assistance  Construction site organization works  Unforeseen expenditures Cost-Benefit Analysis (only for FS) The cost-benefit analysis is developed according to requirements set through Order 863/2008 Financial performance indicators are specified (net present value, internal rate of return, cost-benefit ratio, total cash flows) The economic analysis is included (required only for major projects) The sensitivity analysis is included The risk assessment is included Availability of Technical-Economic Indicators Total value, including VAT Construction and assembly Sequencing of investment 153 Duration of completing the investment Capacities Other specific indicators The Decision of the Local/County Councils Mentions the technical-economic indicators, as noted in the technical-economic documentation Mentions explicitly the co-financing sum for completing the investment The co-financing sum covers the value required for developing the project, according to the general breakdown Ownership Documents proving ownership are annexed Operation and maintenance There is a written commitment by the applicant to either:  Operate and maintain the investment with own funds.  Cede operation of water and/or wastewater system to the Regional Operating Water Company (ROC). In case operation will be ceded to the ROC, applicant should also provide a certification that it has entered the ROC’s Intercommunity Development Association Note: This triage grid may be subject to additional changes, as the Programmatic Documents for the 2014-2020 Programming Period will become final, and as the Applicant Guides for EU funded programs will be finalized. 154 Annex 8: Conformity Checklist for Technical Projects Name of investment: ………………………… Identification code: - Documentation examination date / period: ……… STEP 1: General criteria regarding the TD’s content YES NO N.A. The TD contains both written parts and drawn parts. --- --- A general report [memoriu general] that summarizes all --- --- aspects characterizing the investment is included. Technical reports on specialties [memorii tehnice pentru --- --- specialități] are included and presented separately. Tender books on each specialty are included. --- --- Lists with works amounts on each specialty are present An expenditure summary for each investment objective is included (form F1). An expenditure summary by categories of works and by goods is included (form F2). The lists with works amounts by categories of works are included (form F3). The lists with the hardware and technological equipment, including facilities are present (form F4 ). The specification sheets of hardware and technological equipment are included (form F5). The lists with the works amounts for temporary constructions are included (form F3). The overall work implementation schedule is included in the documentation. The technical controllers’ reports (signed and stamped) for each project section that requires checking according to the law are included. 155 In case of intervention works, the technical expertise or the appraisal of the initial designer is included. Where appropriate, the geotechnical study is checked against the Af41 requirement. The maps of the investment objectives are included for all specialties, according to the lists presented in the control lers’ separate reports on specialties. The architecture plates for each object are present, including quotas, sizes, distances, functions, areas, clarifications regarding the finishing details according to the list presented in the reports of the technical controllers by specialties. Structure plates are included for each object, with all the features; the infrastructure and superstructure plans, as well as their characteristic sections are listed according to the list presented in the reports of the technical controllers by specialties. Detailed installation plates are included for each object according to the list presented in the reports of the technical controllers by specialties. Hardware and technological equipment plates are included according to the list presented in the reports of the technical controllers by specialties. Facilities plates are included according to the list presented in the reports of the technical controllers by specialties. Where appropriate, notices, agreements, approvals, planning certificate, technical approvals are attached. STEP 2: Specific criteria regarding the TD’s quality aspects YES NO N.A. 41 Af - foundation soil resistance and stability in the case of constructions and solid ground. 156 The written parts include the title page that contains the project title, the phase, the beneficiary, the data of the designer, the drafting date. The written parts contain the list with the signatures of the designer’s legal representative, the project manager, and the specialized elaborators. There is a correlation between the TD’s investment project and the FS (the scenario recommended by the elaborator of the study/approval documentation was considered). Where appropriate, there are technical reports on the following specialties: architecture, resistance, interior installations, utility networks, and technology. The TD is checked by technical controllers that are certified by specialties according to the “Quality control and technical expertise of projects, execution works and constructions – Government Decision no. 925/1995; O.M. no. 286/1995”. The stamp and signature of the technical controller are included (written parts and drawn parts) where this is required by law. The documentation includes the project for site organization with a summary, demolitions, network deviations, temporary access ways, water supply, electricity, heating, and telecommunications. The tender books contain calculation summaries for dimensioning the construction elements and installations. The tender books describe the works and materials provided for in each specialty project. The tender books contain instructions for execution, installation, technical specifications regarding the use of materials, equipment, tests and trials, while indicating standards, norms and technical requirements that must be met. Investment estimates [devizele pe obiect ] are made on the basis of the ante-measurement according to the indicators of estimates norms/articles pooled with works descriptions. 157 Topographical plans for vertical systematization works are included. Where appropriate, plans for underground constructions are included. The maps are numbered/encoded and their cartridges have a format and content in compliance with the applicable standards42 ; the signatures of designers are also present. Specialty plates are correlated with the correspondent technical reports. Where appropriate, the necessary approvals for network deviations are obtained from owners/operators. Note: The forms F1 - F5 are included in Order no. 863/2008. IMPORTANT Step 1 of the evaluation process is covered by the expert evaluators in the cases in which the documentation submitted by the Applicant contains only the TD. Step 2 of the evaluation process is covered by the expert evaluators in the cases in which the documentation submitted by the Applicant contains the Feasibility Study / Documentation for Approval of Intervention Works (as the case) and the TD. 42 Plates with different cartridges may be accepted, but only if they comply with the standard content and include the signatures. 158 Annex 9: Recommendations for an improved PNDL conformity checklist Items YES NO Mentions 1 The documentation includes a list of contents. The documentation abides by the template for FS/DALI, as mandated by GD 28/2008 (with subsequent addenda). If the documentation includes a detailed technical design, it must also include the FS/DALI. The investment type abides by GEO 28/2013 and MRDPA Ministry Order 1851/2013. 2 The documentation includes: Technical expertise Geotechnical survey verified for Af requirement Topographical survey Other surveys and studies (as relevant): -traffic study -hydrogeological study -energy efficiency audit - study of wastewater recycling (effluent to outfall) -other required studies 3 Permits and approvals Documentation includes a valid Urbanism Certificate (UC). UC specifies required permits. Documentation includes all required final permits* (as specified by the UC). * except EIA 4 General Breakdown The project’s General Breakdown is correctly developed and updated based on GD 28/2008 requirements. The documentation describes general breakdown per objects to enable checking whether they abide by the cost standard limits. The documentation includes the list of works quantities for each work category. The amounts included in the general breakdown for each chapter/subchapter abide by the maximum limits set by the cost standards from GD 363/2010. Expenditures will be presented clearly for the following 159 Items YES NO Mentions categories. Design and civil engineering - FS + permits and approvals documentation - Technical Design + technical verification of project Consultancy Technical assistance Construction site organization works Unforeseen expenditures 5 Cost-benefit analysis (only for FS) The cost-benefit analysis is developed according to requirements set through Order 863/2008. Financial performance indicators are specified (net present value, internal rate of return, cost-benefit ratio, total cash flows). The economic analysis is included (required only for major projects). The sensitivity analysis is included. The risk assessment is included. 6 The technical-economic indicators of the investment Total value, including VAT Construction and assembly Sequencing of investment Duration of completing the investment Capacities Other specific indicators 7 The Decision of the Local / County Council Mentions the technical-economic indicators, as noted in the technical-economic documentation. Mentions explicitly the co-financing sum for completing the investment. The co-financing sum covers the value required for developing the project, according to the general breakdown. 8 Documents proving ownership are annexed. 9 There is a written commitment by the applicant to operate and maintain the investment. 160 Annex 10: The Methodology for the elaboration of the LHDI The Index of Local Human Development (LHDI) measures the total capital of localities, looking in particular at four dimensions: human capital, health capital, vital capital, and material capital. Single indicators are used to measure each of the first three stocks. Material capital is assessed as a factor score of three specific indicators that focus on living standards: dwelling space, private cars to 1000 residents, and distribution of gas for household consumption in the particular territorial unit. The aggregation of the four measures of the dimensions of community capital is achieved by another factor score. One of the key advantages of LHDI is that it allows for comparison of very different localities, urban or rural, small or large. The LHDI Methodology The measure was proposed and tested in 2011 and worked in a slightly different form, with seven input indicators. 43 The current form adopted three modifications compared to the initial version of the index: 43 Sandu, D. (2011). Disparități sociale în dezvoltarea și în politica regională din România. International Review of Social Research, I (1), 1-30. 161 a) the indicators on material capital are integrated in an index before computing the final index; b) the indicator on the demographic size of locality was not included into the computation for LHDI due to its very high variation (e.g., from over two million inhabitants for București to only a few hundred for very small localities); c) very small localities of less than one thousands inhabitants are not included in the database. All localities (rural communes, especially) of less than one thousand are excluded from estimations. The LHDI is similar to the Human Development Index (HDI) used by UNDP. Both of them include measures of education, economic performance, and health. Only health is measured by life expectancy of birth in both indices. GDP that is specific for HDI is usually computed only for countries or large regional units. The factor score aggregating the four LHDI indicators for the four forms of community capital is converted to take a variation from about zero to about 100 by the Hull score= 50+14*factor score. The comparison between 2002 and 2011 data was assured by putting locality data for both years in the same database to generate different indices. LHDI values for counties or regions are generated as weighted averages of locality values, with population as a weighting factor. LHDI is limited in the Romanian statistical system to measuring community capital at each Census. This is due do the fact that data for measuring education stocks for each locality are available only at censuses. All the primary data have been provided by the National Institute of Statistics (NIS). NIS also computed life expectancy at birth for each locality (for periods of three consecutive years) and the average age of adult population. The new index is a measure of local human capital if one expands the concept of human capital to include not only education, but also health. 44 Adding the indicators of material capital and age structure makes the index a measure of community capital. Its validity was tested on large data sets and using the index as predictor and as dependent variable in different multivariate analyses. 45 Poverty as measured by LHDI is not to be confused with simple aggregations of individual or household poverty (headcount) indices. LHDI is a measure of the key stocks of community capital in its human, vital, health, and material forms. 44 Becker, G. S. 2009. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education : University of Chicago Press. 45 See for example: Sandu, D. 2011 . Disparități sociale în dezvoltarea și în politica regională din România. International Review of Social Research, I (1), 1-30; or Sandu, D. 2013. Disparități și fluxuri în fundamentarea socia l-economică a regionalizării administrative a României. Bucuresti: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice. 162 Local Human Development Index by counties and residence, for 2002 and 2011 Develop Local Human Development Index (LHDI) LHDI2011-LHDI2002 ment RURAL URBAN TOTAL RURAL URBAN TOTAL level County 2002 2011 2002 2011 2002 2011 BUCURESTI (B) 76 102 76 102 0 26 26 upper developed ILFOV ( IF) 57 81 68 99 58 89 24 31 31 BRASOV (BV) 54 66 77 95 71 87 12 18 16 CLUJ (CJ) 44 62 79 99 68 87 18 20 19 SIBIU (SB) 53 64 79 94 70 84 11 15 14 TIMIS ™ 50 66 74 94 64 83 16 20 19 CONSTANTA (CT) 43 60 64 84 57 77 17 21 19 PRAHOVA (PH) 49 63 72 90 61 77 14 17 16 ALBA (AB) 49 60 73 87 63 76 11 15 13 developed ARGES (AG) 46 60 77 94 60 76 14 17 16 MURES (MS) 49 62 74 89 62 76 12 15 14 HUNEDOARA (HD) 47 60 64 80 60 75 13 15 15 ARAD (AD) 48 61 67 84 58 74 14 17 16 IASI (IS) 39 54 75 94 57 73 15 20 17 MARAMURES (MM) 45 58 67 83 57 73 13 15 16 DOLJ (DJ) 37 49 73 92 55 73 12 20 18 GORJ (GJ) 48 60 73 87 58 73 12 13 14 GALATI (GL) 40 53 68 87 56 72 13 19 16 BISTRITA NASAUD (BN) 48 59 77 93 58 72 11 17 14 SATU MARE (SM) 43 58 73 87 56 72 15 14 16 upper-middle developed BRAILA (BR) 38 48 65 84 55 72 11 19 17 HARGHITA (HG) 49 61 70 84 59 71 12 14 13 BIHOR (BH) 43 57 67 85 54 71 15 18 17 VALCEA (VL) 42 58 72 87 54 71 16 15 17 COVASNA (CV) 46 56 74 85 60 71 10 11 11 DIMBOVITA (DB) 47 63 75 88 55 71 16 13 15 CARAS-SEVERIN (CS) 44 56 66 81 56 70 12 14 14 SUCEAVA (SV) 47 60 70 82 54 69 13 12 15 SALAJ (SJ) 41 54 73 90 54 69 12 17 15 BACAU (BC) 40 53 69 87 53 68 13 18 15 NEAMT (NT) 42 56 70 86 53 68 14 16 15 VRANCEA (VR) 41 54 68 86 51 66 13 18 15 middle developed BUZAU (BZ) 40 52 69 85 51 66 12 16 14 TULCEA (TC) 41 51 60 78 50 65 11 18 15 MEHEDINTI (MH) 37 48 66 81 50 65 11 16 14 OLT (OT) 40 50 68 83 51 63 10 15 12 IALOMITA (IL) 36 46 66 79 48 61 10 13 14 VASLUI (VS) 33 44 68 83 47 60 10 14 13 lower middle BOTOSANI (BT) 32 44 67 81 44 60 13 14 15 developed CALARASI (CL) 35 48 57 77 43 59 13 20 16 GIURGIU (GR) 36 50 58 77 42 58 14 18 16 TELEORMAN (TL) 33 45 62 79 42 56 12 16 14 TOTAL 43 56 71 90 58 75 13 19 17 DISPARITY (MAX -MIN ) 25 38 21 25 33 44 163 Annex 11. The Financial Sustainability Index for County Councils and Local Councils Financial Sustainability refers to the capacity of public authorities to cover operation and maintenance costs once an investment has been made. A prudent approach in this sense is to not spend more than 30% of non-earmarked revenues for capital expenses. Earmarked revenues are those revenues that have to be spent with a particular purpose. EU funds for example, are earmarked funds, as they can only be spent on certain issues. Capital expenses generally represent non-recurrent expenses, such as investments in infrastructure. Non-earmarked revenues are revenues that can be spent by public authorities at will, within the boundaries of the law. For our purposes, non-earmarked revenues were calculated using the following formula: Non-Earmarked Revenues = (Own Revenues) + (Shared Personal Income Tax) + (Non-Earmarked Grants) + (Other Revenues) The following steps were taken in the elaboration of the FSI: 1. Creating a comprehensive database on budget execution (simplified form provided by the Treasury, within the Ministry of Finance) for all territorial administrative units in Romania for the period 2008-2012. 2. Determining the non-revenue of special administrative units (default by law) up to the local authorities for the period 2008 to 2012 (Non-Earmarked Revenues) 3. The analysis of LGUs (Local Government Units) revenue in the last five years (2008-2012) and the determination of possible future trends for the period 2014- 2022. 4. Determining aggregate non-earmarked revenues for 2014-2020 and taking 30% out of it – i.e. the prudent capital expenditure margin for 2014-2022. Several scenarios were considered to estimate aggregate non-earmarked revenues for 2014-2020: a pessimistic, an average, and an optimistic scenario. These scenarios took into consideration past budget growth rates for different types of localities and territorial administrative units. The prudent capital expenditure margins for county councils and local councils are included in the tables below. 164 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margins for County Councils Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 County Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario Alba € 41,166,325 € 49,575,409 € 57,673,489 Arad € 69,142,185 € 83,265,926 € 96,867,309 Argeș € 76,883,530 € 92,588,602 € 107,712,833 Bacău € 60,960,118 € 73,412,500 € 85,404,338 Bihor € 63,004,443 € 75,874,420 € 88,268,411 Bistrița Năsăud € 57,190,236 € 68,872,541 € 80,122,783 Botoșani € 44,735,703 € 53,873,908 € 62,674,143 Brașov € 89,278,723 € 107,515,774 € 125,078,339 Brăila € 37,697,759 € 45,398,317 € 52,814,074 Buzău € 42,145,642 € 50,754,773 € 59,045,501 Caraş-Severin € 31,956,208 € 38,483,934 € 44,770,235 Călăraşi € 25,019,326 € 30,130,047 € 35,051,752 Cluj € 124,057,882 € 149,399,304 € 173,803,491 Constanţa € 160,147,893 € 192,861,456 € 224,365,130 Covasna € 25,577,832 € 30,802,640 € 35,834,212 Dâmboviţa € 50,975,858 € 61,388,746 € 71,416, 519 Dolj € 68,296,997 € 82,248,090 € 95,683,212 Galaţi € 52,474,906 € 63,194,006 € 73,516,666 Giurgiu € 26,072,329 € 31,398,149 € 36,526,997 Gorj € 40,352,474 € 48,595,312 € 56,533,295 Harghita € 33,395,077 € 40,216,722 € 46,786,072 Hunedoara € 48,848,010 € 58,826,240 € 68,435,431 Ialomiţa € 26,807,606 € 32,283,622 € 37,557,110 Iaşi € 76,022,332 € 91,551,487 € 106,506,306 Ilfov € 81,936,440 € 98,673,675 € 114,791,895 Maramureş € 42,619,385 € 51,325,288 € 59,709,208 Mehedinți € 27,732,120 € 33,396,987 € 38,852,342 Mureş € 65,472,621 € 78,846,776 € 91,726,297 Neamț € 42,296,781 € 50,936,785 € 59,257,244 Olt € 36,239,255 € 43,641,882 € 50,770,728 Prahova € 91,911,414 € 110,686,247 € 128,766,705 Satu Mare € 45,140,311 € 54,361,165 € 63,240,993 Sălaj € 22,178,029 € 26,708,356 € 31,071,132 Sibiu € 68,830,294 € 82,890,324 € 96,430,353 165 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 County Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario Suceava € 52,095,869 € 62,737,542 € 72,985,640 Teleorman € 34,204,732 € 41,191,766 € 47,920,388 Timiș € 112,101,070 € 135,000,063 € 157,052,152 Tulcea € 30,501,315 € 36,731,848 € 42,731,948 Vaslui € 32,813,976 € 39,516,919 € 45,971,957 Vâlcea € 40,534,089 € 48,814,026 € 56,787,736 Vrancea € 30,957,045 € 37,280,671 € 43,370,421 166 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margins for Local Councils Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AB 1213 Aiud € 10,581,217 € 12,742,653 € 14,824,149 AB 1017 Alba Iulia € 56,929,216 € 68,558,201 € 79,757,096 AB 1348 Blaj € 11,371,794 € 13 ,694,722 € 15,931,737 AB 1874 Sebe ș € 22,388,481 € 26,961,798 € 31,365,974 AB 1151 Abrud € 2,478,892 € 2,985,257 € 3,472,895 AB 2915 Baia de Aries € 1,541,671 € 1,856,590 € 2,159,861 AB 1455 Câmpeni € 3,866,801 € 4,656,676 € 5,417,339 AB 1696 Cugir € 13,418,005 € 16,158,914 € 18,798,452 AB 1794 Ocna Mure ș € 4,867,330 € 5,861,584 € 6,819,066 AB 8096 Teiuș € 3,766,419 € 4,535,789 € 5,276,704 AB 1936 Zlatna € 3,488,059 € 4,200,568 € 4,886,725 AB 2130 Albac € 1,246,893 € 1,501,597 € 1,746,881 AB 2309 Alma ș u Mare € 957,599 € 1,153,208 € 1,341,583 AB 2381 Arie ș eni € 750,291 € 903,553 € 1,051,148 AB 2577 Avram Iancu € 1,098,882 € 1,323,352 € 1,539,519 AB 2988 Berghin € 1,198,273 € 1,443,046 € 1,678,765 AB 3039 Bistra € 2,725,180 € 3,281,855 € 3,817,94 2 AB 3397 Blandiana € 520,568 € 626,905 € 729,309 AB 9026 Bucerdea Granoasa € 1,217,341 € 1,466,008 € 1,705,479 AB 3459 Bucium € 845,564 € 1,018,288 € 1,184,624 AB 4106 Calnic € 997,441 € 1,201,190 € 1,397,403 AB 3761 Cenade € 543,835 € 654,924 € 761, 905 AB 3805 Cergau € 739,741 € 890,849 € 1,036,368 AB 3841 Ceru Bacainti € 252,797 € 304,436 € 354,165 AB 3958 Cetatea de Balta € 1,235,067 € 1,487,356 € 1,730,313 AB 1071 Ciugud € 1,432,634 € 1,725,279 € 2,007,102 AB 4008 Ciuruleasa € 684,479 € 824,2 98 € 958,946 AB 4188 Craciunelul de Jos € 825,367 € 993,966 € 1,156,329 AB 4142 Cricau € 1,025,839 € 1,235,388 € 1,437,187 AB 9019 Cut € 536,594 € 646,205 € 751,761 AB 4240 Daia Romana € 1,084,347 € 1,305,848 € 1,519,157 AB 4268 Dostat € 499,695 € 601 ,768 € 700,066 AB 4302 Farau € 833,028 € 1,003,192 € 1,167,062 AB 4366 Galda de Jos € 3,237,813 € 3,899,204 € 4,536,134 167 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AB 4482 Garbova € 1,524,206 € 1,835,557 € 2,135,393 AB 4525 Garda de Sus € 880,155 € 1,059,945 € 1,233,085 AB 4703 Hoparta € 848,33 0 € 1,021,619 € 1,188,499 AB 4767 Horea € 1,215,953 € 1,464,337 € 1,703,534 AB 4927 Ighiu € 2,495,840 € 3,005,667 € 3,496,639 AB 4981 Intregalde € 326,477 € 393,167 € 457,391 AB 5103 Jidvei € 2,345,284 € 2,824,357 € 3,285,712 AB 5167 Livezile € 1,484, 099 € 1,787,257 € 2,079,203 AB 5210 Lopadea Noua € 1,451,989 € 1,748,588 € 2,034,217 AB 5309 Lunca Ms € 840,545 € 1,012,244 € 1,177,593 AB 5336 Lupsa € 1,291,936 € 1,555,841 € 1,809,986 AB 5577 Metes € 1,049,285 € 1,263,624 € 1,470,035 AB 5700 Mihalt € 1,308,738 € 1,576,076 € 1,833,526 AB 5755 Miraslau € 1,005,469 € 1,210,857 € 1,408,649 AB 5826 Mogos € 406,382 € 489,394 € 569,336 AB 6048 Noslac € 904,455 € 1,089,209 € 1,267,130 AB 6119 Ocolis € 566,494 € 682,213 € 793,651 AB 6164 Ohaba € 454,251 € 547,042 € 636,400 AB 6217 Pianu € 1,421,786 € 1,712,216 € 1,991,904 AB 6271 Poiana Vadului € 485,187 € 584,297 € 679,741 AB 6397 Ponor € 517,657 € 623,399 € 725,231 AB 6468 Posaga € 717,453 € 864,008 € 1,005,142 AB 6547 Radesti € 853,873 € 1,028,294 € 1,196,265 AB 6627 Ramet € 449,943 € 541,853 € 630,364 AB 6592 Rimetea € 656,757 € 790,913 € 920,108 AB 6930 Rosia de Secas € 761,091 € 916,560 € 1,066,279 AB 6761 Rosia Montana € 2,644,590 € 3,184,803 € 3,705,036 AB 6976 Salciua € 1,110,843 € 1,337 ,756 € 1,556,277 AB 7044 Salistea € 873,116 € 1,051,468 € 1,223,224 AB 7348 Sancel € 975,783 € 1,175,107 € 1,367,059 AB 7384 Santimbru € 1,685,655 € 2,029,986 € 2,361,581 AB 7099 Sasciori € 2,318,174 € 2,791,710 € 3,247,732 AB 7197 Scarisoara € 779,40 4 € 938,613 € 1,091,934 AB 7810 Sibot € 1,241,662 € 1,495,298 € 1,739,553 AB 7446 Sohodol € 636,911 € 767,014 € 892,304 AB 7865 Sona € 1,383,521 € 1,666,134 € 1,938,295 168 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AB 7945 Spring € 1,174,782 € 1,414,756 € 1,645,854 AB 7767 Stremt € 1,137,063 € 1,369,332 € 1,593,010 AB 8014 Sugag € 1,221,183 € 1,470,636 € 1,710,862 AB 8158 Unirea € 1,915,965 € 2,307,341 € 2,684,242 AB 8229 Vadu Motilor € 1,386,237 € 1,669,405 € 1,942,101 AB 8354 Valea Lunga € 1,437,754 € 1,731,446 € 2,014,275 AB 8425 Vidra € 7 29,320 € 878,298 € 1,021,767 AB 8826 Vintu de Jos € 2,435,405 € 2,932,888 € 3,411,971 AR 9262 Arad € 191,135,706 € 230,179,180 € 267,778,657 AR 9459 Chişineu -Criş € 6,888,404 € 8,295,504 € 9,650,564 AR 9495 Curtici € 7,098,061 € 8,547,989 € 9,944,292 AR 9538 Ineu € 10,428,252 € 12,558,441 € 14,609,847 AR 9574 Lipova € 7,611,522 € 9,166,335 € 10,663,644 AR 9627 Nădlac € 6,008,120 € 7,235,404 € 8,417,298 AR 9654 Pâncota € 4,565,819 € 5,498,484 € 6,396,654 AR 11584 Pecica € 9,522,948 € 11,468,209 € 13 ,341,527 AR 12091 Sântana € 5,864,580 € 7,062,544 € 8,216,201 AR 9690 Sebiş € 6,735,710 € 8,111,620 € 9,436,643 AR 9743 Almaş € 1,798,659 € 2,166,073 € 2,519,898 AR 9798 Apateu € 1,805,090 € 2,173,818 € 2,528,908 AR 9832 Archiş € 1,432,008 € 1,724,526 € 2,006,225 AR 9887 Bata € 905,525 € 1,090,497 € 1,268,629 AR 10051 Bârsa € 1,438,138 € 1,731,907 € 2,014,812 AR 10104 Bârzava € 1,367,971 € 1,647,408 € 1,916,510 AR 9930 Beliu € 1,749,904 € 2,107,358 € 2,451,593 AR 10006 Birchiş € 1,075,637 € 1,295, 358 € 1,506,954 AR 10195 Bocsig € 2,432,946 € 2,929,926 € 3,408,526 AR 10239 Brazii € 844,352 € 1,016,828 € 1,182,926 AR 10293 Buteni € 1,374,454 € 1,655,215 € 1,925,592 AR 10346 Cărand € 817,735 € 984,774 € 1,145,636 AR 10373 Cermei € 2,123,440 € 2,5 57,197 € 2,974,912 AR 10417 Chisindia € 1,020,803 € 1,229,323 € 1,430,132 AR 10453 Conop € 1,620,126 € 1,951,070 € 2,269,775 AR 10514 Covăsânţ € 1,251,003 € 1,506,546 € 1,752,638 AR 10532 Craiva € 974,993 € 1,174,156 € 1,365,953 AR 10649 Dezna € 818,0 12 € 985,108 € 1,146,024 169 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AR 10701 Dieci € 976,896 € 1,176,447 € 1,368,619 AR 12912 Dorobanţi € 1,346,322 € 1,621,337 € 1,886,180 AR 9280 Fântânale € 1,714,140 € 2,064,289 € 2,401,488 AR 10827 Felnac € 1,980,432 € 2,384,977 € 2,774,560 AR 12920 Frumuşe ni € 2,088,490 € 2,515,108 € 2,925,948 AR 10872 Ghioroc € 2,713,242 € 3,267,478 € 3,801,217 AR 10916 Grăniceri € 1,051,958 € 1,266,843 € 1,473,780 AR 10943 Gurahonţ € 1,990,209 € 2,396,750 € 2,788,257 AR 11058 Hălmagiu € 1,443,403 € 1,738,248 € 2,022,1 89 AR 11174 Hălmăgel € 670,854 € 807,890 € 939,858 AR 11236 Hăşmaş € 828,820 € 998,123 € 1,161,166 AR 11307 Igneşti € 406,755 € 489,843 € 569,859 AR 11352 Iratoşu € 1,164,295 € 1,402,127 € 1,631,163 AR 9333 Livada € 1,863,504 € 2,244,164 € 2,610,746 AR 11398 Macea € 2,238,020 € 2,695,182 € 3,135,437 AR 11423 Mişca € 4,722,500 € 5,687,170 € 6,616,162 AR 11478 Moneasa € 1,129,007 € 1,359,630 € 1,581,724 AR 11502 Olari € 1,144,844 € 1,378,702 € 1,603,911 AR 11539 Păuliş € 2,678,842 € 3,226,051 € 3,75 3,023 AR 11637 Peregu - Mare € 1,720,544 € 2,072,002 € 2,410,460 AR 11664 Petriş € 933,185 € 1,123,807 € 1,307,380 AR 11735 Pilu € 1,231,994 € 1,483,654 € 1,726,007 AR 11762 Pleşcuţa € 696,310 € 838,546 € 975,521 AR 11842 Săvârşin € 2,145,621 € 2,583, 909 € 3,005,988 AR 11940 Secusigiu € 2,187,269 € 2,634,065 € 3,064,336 AR 11995 Seleuş € 1,331,405 € 1,603,372 € 1,865,281 AR 12037 Semlac € 2,743,522 € 3,303,944 € 3,843,639 AR 12055 Sintea - Mare € 2,631,302 € 3,168,801 € 3,686,420 AR 12126 Socodor € 1,792,624 € 2,158,805 € 2,511,443 AR 12144 Şagu € 2,705,094 € 3,257,666 € 3,789,801 AR 12206 Şeitin € 1,327,266 € 1,598,388 € 1,859,482 AR 12224 Şepreuş € 1,367,130 € 1,646,395 € 1,915,332 AR 12242 Şicula € 3,054,117 € 3,677,985 € 4,278,779 AR 12288 Şilindia € 812,087 € 977,972 € 1,137,723 AR 12340 Şimand € 1,908,595 € 2,298,465 € 2,673,917 AR 12368 Şiria € 4,182,134 € 5,036,422 € 5,859,115 170 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AR 12402 Şiştarovăţ € 228,882 € 275,636 € 320,660 AR 9360 Şofronea € 1,303,264 € 1,569,483 € 1,825,856 AR 12457 Tauţ € 1,560,104 € 1,878,789 € 2,185,686 AR 12509 Târnova € 1,910,982 € 2,301,341 € 2,677,262 AR 10765 Ususău € 1,126,912 € 1,357,107 € 1,578,789 AR 12572 Vărădia de Mureş € 1,210,533 € 1,457,810 € 1,695,942 AR 12689 Vârfurile € 1,202,509 € 1,448 ,147 € 1,684,700 AR 12643 Vinga € 4,055,645 € 4,884,096 € 5,681,907 AR 9397 Vladimirescu € 8,270,281 € 9,959,659 € 11,586,557 AR 12778 Zăbrani € 3,096,028 € 3,728,457 € 4,337,495 AR 12938 Zădăreni € 1,517,380 € 1,827,337 € 2,125,830 AR 12812 Zărand € 2,001,048 € 2,409,804 € 2,803,443 AR 12849 Zerind € 1,421,860 € 1,712,304 € 1,992,007 AR 12876 Zimandul Nou € 2,435,605 € 2,933,128 € 3,412,251 AG 13490 Campulung € 16,949,120 € 20,411,334 € 23,745,499 AG 13622 Curtea de Arges € 15,479,240 € 18,641,199 € 21,686,215 AG 13169 Pitesti € 163,190,874 € 196,526,031 € 228,628,308 AG 13668 Costesti € 5,013,930 € 6,038,131 € 7,024,452 AG 13301 Mioveni € 58,695,677 € 70,685,499 € 82,231,885 AG 13392 Stefanesti € 7,737,760 € 9,318,359 € 10,840,502 AG 13757 Topoloveni € 6,072,709 € 7,313,187 € 8,507,786 AG 13819 Albestii de Arges € 2,050,623 € 2,469,505 € 2,872,896 AG 13891 Albestii de Muscel € 1,242,048 € 1,495,763 € 1,740,094 AG 13935 Albota € 2,498,611 € 3,009,005 € 3,500,522 AG 13999 Aninoasa € 1,070,15 7 € 1,288,759 € 1,499,277 AG 14049 Arefu € 1,502,538 € 1,809,463 € 2,105,036 AG 14085 Babana € 1,310,408 € 1,578,086 € 1,835,865 AG 14165 Baiculesti € 1,881,888 € 2,266,303 € 2,636,501 AG 14272 Balilesti € 1,446,360 € 1,741,809 € 2,026,332 AG 13187 Bascov € 7,086,533 € 8,534,106 € 9,928,141 AG 14352 Beleti-Negresti € 677,197 € 815,528 € 948,744 AG 14405 Berevoesti € 2,473,709 € 2,979,015 € 3,465,634 AG 14450 Birla € 2,472,343 € 2,977,371 € 3,463,721 AG 14584 Bogati € 1,891,971 € 2,278,446 € 2,650,6 27 AG 14673 Boteni € 1,448,043 € 1,743,836 € 2,028,689 AG 14726 Botesti € 634,417 € 764,010 € 888,810 171 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AG 13276 Bradu € 13,658,584 € 16,448,636 € 19,135,499 AG 14753 Bradulet € 954,136 € 1,149,038 € 1,336,732 AG 14851 Budeasa € 1,450,255 € 1,746,500 € 2,031,789 AG 14922 Bughea de Jos € 980,150 € 1,180,366 € 1,373,177 AG 20063 Bughea de Sus € 999,194 € 1,203,300 € 1,399,858 AG 14940 Buzoiesti € 2,650,799 € 3,192,280 € 3,713,735 AG 15064 Caldararu € 1,174,544 € 1,414,469 € 1,645,521 AG 15108 Calinesti € 2,845,961 € 3,427,308 € 3,987,154 AG 15233 Cateasca € 2,044,972 € 2,462,701 € 2,864,980 AG 15313 Cepari € 1,172,107 € 1,411,535 € 1,642,107 AG 15402 Cetateni € 1,093,333 € 1,316,670 € 1,531,746 AG 15448 Cicanesti € 853,903 € 1,028,330 € 1,196,307 AG 15493 Ciofrangeni € 1,162,393 € 1,399,836 € 1,628,497 AG 15554 Ciomagesti € 606,078 € 729,882 € 849,107 AG 15652 Cocu € 1,573,963 € 1,895,478 € 2,205,101 AG 15741 Corbeni € 1,871,668 € 2,253,995 € 2,622,183 AG 15830 Corbi € 1,819,496 € 2,191,166 € 2 ,549,090 AG 15901 Cosesti € 1,575,865 € 1,897,768 € 2,207,766 AG 15983 Cotmeana € 1,029,010 € 1,239,207 € 1,441,630 AG 16132 Cuca € 1,091,925 € 1,314,974 € 1,529,773 AG 16329 Dambovicioara € 1,256,448 € 1,513,104 € 1,760,268 AG 16365 Darmanesti € 1,58 8,885 € 1,913,448 € 2,226,007 AG 16285 Davidesti € 1,538,859 € 1,853,204 € 2,155,922 AG 16427 Dobresti € 1,002,858 € 1,207,713 € 1,404,991 AG 16454 Domnesti € 1,838,473 € 2,214,020 € 2,575,678 AG 16506 Draganu € 1,378,746 € 1,660,384 € 1,931,606 AG 16472 Dragoslavele € 953,818 € 1,148,656 € 1,336,287 AG 16551 Godeni € 1,091,658 € 1,314,652 € 1,529,399 AG 16613 Harsesti € 1,082,698 € 1,303,862 € 1,516,846 AG 16659 Hartiesti € 600,838 € 723,572 € 841,766 AG 16739 Izvoru € 964,645 € 1,161,695 € 1,351, 456 AG 16757 Leordeni € 2,551,348 € 3,072,514 € 3,574,405 AG 16908 Leresti € 1,939,849 € 2,336,104 € 2,717,704 AG 16944 Lunca Corbului € 1,384,779 € 1,667,649 € 1,940,057 AG 17049 Malureni € 1,655,064 € 1,993,145 € 2,318,723 AG 13365 Maracineni € 3,67 8,149 € 4,429,488 € 5,153,040 172 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AG 17101 Merisani € 1,948,348 € 2,346,339 € 2,729,611 AG 17209 Micesti € 1,916,560 € 2,308,057 € 2,685,075 AG 17254 Mihaesti € 1,863,076 € 2,243,648 € 2,610,145 AG 17334 Mioarele € 944,040 € 1,136,880 € 1,322,588 AG 17398 Mirosi € 1,633,425 € 1,967,087 € 2,288,408 AG 17423 Moraresti € 859,589 € 1,035,178 € 1,204,273 AG 17496 Mosoaia € 2,214,955 € 2,667,406 € 3,103,123 AG 17575 Mozaceni € 1,095,078 € 1,318,770 € 1,534,190 AG 17619 Musatesti € 1,695,096 € 2,041,354 € 2,3 74,807 AG 17726 Negrasi € 1,248,782 € 1,503,872 € 1,749,528 AG 17771 Nucsoara € 966,159 € 1,163,517 € 1,353,576 AG 17824 Oarja € 2,342,973 € 2,821,575 € 3,282,475 AG 17851 Pietrosani € 1,801,761 € 2,169,808 € 2,524,244 AG 18028 Poiana Lacului € 2,575, 533 € 3,101,640 € 3,608,288 AG 17913 Poienarii de Arges € 375,847 € 452,622 € 526,557 AG 17968 Poienarii de Muscel € 1,127,633 € 1,357,976 € 1,579,800 AG 18162 Popesti € 875,362 € 1,054,173 € 1,226,371 AG 18242 Priboieni € 1,254,756 € 1,511,066 € 1,757 ,897 AG 20048 Raca € 676,248 € 814,386 € 947,415 AG 18331 Ratesti € 1,487,699 € 1,791,593 € 2,084,247 AG 18411 Recea € 1,116,422 € 1,344,474 € 1,564,093 AG 18475 Rociu € 1,798,268 € 2,165,602 € 2,519,350 AG 18527 Rucar € 2,680,404 € 3,227,933 € 3,755, 211 AG 18554 Salatrucu € 1,024,536 € 1,233,819 € 1,435,362 AG 18581 Sapata € 1,043,505 € 1,256,663 € 1,461,938 AG 18670 Schitu Golesti € 1,937,112 € 2,332,807 € 2,713,868 AG 18741 Slobozia € 1,739,580 € 2,094,926 € 2,437,130 AG 18778 Stalpeni € 2,009, 249 € 2,419,680 € 2,814,932 AG 19114 Stefan cel Mare € 1,254,048 € 1,510,214 € 1,756,906 AG 18858 Stoenesti € 1,283,208 € 1,545,330 € 1,797,758 AG 18938 Stolnici € 1,602,874 € 1,930,295 € 2,245,606 AG 19141 Suici € 1,401,596 € 1,687,902 € 1,963,618 AG 19007 Suseni € 2,293,565 € 2,762,073 € 3,213,254 AG 19212 Teiu € 881,525 € 1,061,595 € 1,235,006 AG 19249 Tigveni € 2,015,224 € 2,426,876 € 2,823,303 AG 19338 Titesti € 2,326,792 € 2,802,088 € 3,259,806 173 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario AG 19392 Uda € 904,403 € 1,089,146 € 1,267,057 AG 19560 Ungheni € 1,454,532 € 1,751,651 € 2,037,781 AG 19631 Valea Danului € 1,074,915 € 1,294,489 € 1,505,942 AG 19695 Valea Iasului € 1,920,063 € 2,312,276 € 2,689,983 AG 13524 Valea Mare Pravat € 3,841,700 € 4,626,447 € 5,382,172 AG 19793 Vedea € 1 ,738,126 € 2,093,175 € 2,435,092 AG 19999 Vladesti € 959,683 € 1,155,718 € 1,344,503 AG 20055 Vulturesti € 1,026,616 € 1,236,324 € 1,438,276 BC 20297 Bacau € 162,656,473 € 195,882,466 € 227,879,618 BC 20876 Moinesti € 15,857,639 € 19,096,895 € 22,216,3 48 BC 20563 Onesti € 24,769,986 € 29,829,774 € 34,702,430 BC 20778 Buhusi € 7,177,629 € 8,643,810 € 10,055,765 BC 20821 Comanesti € 10,967,090 € 13,207,348 € 15,364,751 BC 22166 Darmanesti € 4,781,204 € 5,757,865 € 6,698,405 BC 20910 Slanic Moldova € 3,354,855 € 4,040,155 € 4,700,109 BC 20965 Tg. Ocna € 6,508,632 € 7,838,157 € 9,118,510 BC 21007 Agas € 1,800,579 € 2,168,385 € 2,522,588 BC 21098 Ardeoani € 1,052,595 € 1,267,610 € 1,474,673 BC 21123 Asau € 1,978,301 € 2,382,410 € 2,771,574 BC 21196 Balcani € 1,648,314 € 1,985,017 € 2,309,267 BC 21454 Barsanesti € 1,124,019 € 1,353,623 € 1,574,736 BC 21249 Beresti-Bistrita € 713,843 € 859,660 € 1,000,084 BC 21338 Beresti-Tazlau € 1,686,409 € 2,030,893 € 2,362,637 BC 21418 Berzunti € 965,077 € 1,16 2,214 € 1,352,061 BC 21506 Blagesti € 1,834,123 € 2,208,781 € 2,569,583 BC 21560 Bogdanesti € 888,635 € 1,070,158 € 1,244,967 BC 21597 Brusturoasa € 929,877 € 1,119,824 € 1,302,746 BC 26338 Buciumi € 990,894 € 1,193,305 € 1,388,230 BC 21668 Buhoci € 1 ,052,185 € 1,267,116 € 1,474,098 BC 21757 Caiuti € 1,666,175 € 2,006,526 € 2,334,290 BC 21720 Casin € 1,060,078 € 1,276,622 € 1,485,156 BC 21855 Cleja € 1,542,568 € 1,857,670 € 2,161,118 BC 21891 Colonesti € 854,389 € 1,028,916 € 1,196,988 BC 21971 Corbasca € 1,141,976 € 1,375,249 € 1,599,894 BC 22059 Cotofanesti € 1,248,233 € 1,503,210 € 1,748,758 BC 22111 Damienesti € 756,755 € 911,338 € 1,060,204 174 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BC 22237 Dealu Morii € 967,970 € 1,165,699 € 1,356,114 BC 22380 Dofteana € 2,985,355 € 3,595,177 € 4 ,182,444 BC 22460 Faraoani € 1,692,591 € 2,038,338 € 2,371,298 BC 22488 Filipeni € 724,659 € 872,685 € 1,015,237 BC 22576 Filipesti € 1,583,814 € 1,907,341 € 2,218,903 BC 22665 Gaiceana € 1,073,392 € 1,292,655 € 1,503,808 BC 22781 Garleni € 1,867,511 € 2,248,989 € 2,616,358 BC 22718 Ghimes-Faget € 1,325,737 € 1,596,546 € 1,857,340 BC 26346 Gioseni € 950,217 € 1,144,318 € 1,331,241 BC 22834 Glavanesti € 1,774,497 € 2,136,976 € 2,486,048 BC 20607 Gura Vaii € 953,686 € 1,148,496 € 1,336,101 BC 22898 Helegiu € 1,396,774 € 1,682,094 € 1,956,862 BC 20313 Hemeiusi € 1,919,307 € 2,311,365 € 2,688,924 BC 22941 Horgesti € 1,381,332 € 1,663,498 € 1,935,228 BC 23047 Huruiesti € 863,419 € 1,039,790 € 1,209,638 BC 26379 Itesti € 767,025 € 923,706 € 1,074,593 BC 23127 Izvoru Berheciului € 807,206 € 972,095 € 1,130,885 BC 20359 Letea Veche € 2,358,435 € 2,840,195 € 3,304,137 BC 23207 Lipova € 1,225,941 € 1,476,366 € 1,717,528 BC 23289 Livezi € 1,804,622 € 2,173,254 € 2,528,253 BC 23350 Luizi calugara € 1,5 38,952 € 1,853,315 € 2,156,052 BC 23387 Magiresti € 1,536,768 € 1,850,685 € 2,152,992 BC 20411 Magura € 1,537,583 € 1,851,667 € 2,154,135 BC 23449 Manastirea Casin € 1,199,242 € 1,444,213 € 1,680,123 BC 20466 Margineni € 3,579,794 € 4,311,043 € 5,015,2 46 BC 23494 Motoseni € 980,953 € 1,181,333 € 1,374,302 BC 23644 Negri € 940,774 € 1,132,947 € 1,318,013 BC 23715 Nicolae Balcescu € 4,458,581 € 5,369,339 € 6,246,414 BC 0 Odobesti € 613,580 € 738,917 € 859,618 BC 23797 Oituz € 3,110,114 € 3,745,420 € 4,357,229 BC 23868 Oncesti € 866,380 € 1,043,356 € 1,213,787 BC 23948 Orbeni € 1,381,477 € 1,663,673 € 1,935,432 BC 23975 Palanca € 1,118,865 € 1,347,417 € 1,567,515 BC 24187 Pancesti € 1,329,898 € 1,601,557 € 1,863,169 BC 24034 Parava € 721,956 € 869 ,431 € 1,011,451 BC 24276 Pargaresti € 1,096,572 € 1,320,569 € 1,536,283 175 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BC 24089 Parincea € 1,134,296 € 1,365,999 € 1,589,134 BC 24338 Parjol € 2,028,122 € 2,442,409 € 2,841,373 BC 24427 Plopana € 1,195,909 € 1,440,199 € 1,675,454 BC 24524 Podu Turcului € 2,191,987 € 2,639,746 € 3,070,945 BC 24631 Poduri € 1,838,187 € 2,213,675 € 2,575,276 BC 26361 Prajesti € 960,672 € 1,156,909 € 1,345,889 BC 24766 Racaciuni € 2,470,475 € 2,975,121 € 3,461,103 BC 24837 Rachitoasa € 1,358,255 € 1,635,707 € 1,902,8 98 BC 24711 Racova € 1,219,955 € 1,469,157 € 1,709,142 BC 24999 Rosiori € 656,913 € 791,102 € 920,327 BC 25148 Sanduleni € 1,453,543 € 1,750,460 € 2,036,396 BC 26320 Sarata € 849,644 € 1,023,202 € 1,190,340 BC 25068 Sascut € 2,836,705 € 3,416,161 € 3,974,187 BC 25228 Saucesti € 1,672,582 € 2,014,242 € 2,343,266 BC 25291 Scorteni € 804,733 € 969,117 € 1,127,421 BC 25362 Secuieni € 948,732 € 1,142,531 € 1,329,162 BC 25488 Solont € 1,018,184 € 1,226,169 € 1,426,462 BC 25521 Stanisesti € 1,721,246 € 2 ,072,847 € 2,411,444 BC 20670 Stefan cel Mare € 1,558,285 € 1,876,597 € 2,183,137 BC 25629 Strugari € 990,692 € 1,193,061 € 1,387,946 BC 25692 Tamasi € 1,158,414 € 1,395,044 € 1,622,922 BC 25745 Tatarasti € 1,005,053 € 1,210,356 € 1,408,066 BC 25825 Tg. Trotus € 1,615,778 € 1,945,834 € 2,263,683 BC 25861 Traian € 1,351,684 € 1,627,794 € 1,893,692 BC 25932 Ungureni € 1,266,027 € 1,524,640 € 1,773,688 BC 26029 Urechesti € 1,221,591 € 1,471,126 € 1,711,433 BC 26083 Valea Seaca € 1,170,511 € 1,409,613 € 1,639,871 BC 26118 Vultureni € 851,794 € 1,025,791 € 1,193,353 BC 26289 Zemes € 3,375,722 € 4,065,284 € 4,729,343 BH 26804 Beius €0 €0 €0 BH 26877 Marghita € 8,818,782 € 10,620,203 € 12,354,999 BH 26564 Oradea € 194,681,503 € 234,449,280 € 272,74 6,273 BH 26975 Salonta € 12,466,152 € 15,012,625 € 17,464,919 BH 26699 Alesd € 6,289,044 € 7,573,713 € 8,810,870 BH 26920 Nucet € 1,807,215 € 2,176,377 € 2,531,886 BH 30915 Sacuieni € 4,096,261 € 4,933,008 € 5,738,808 176 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BH 26840 Stei € 3,598,584 € 4,333 ,670 € 5,041,570 BH 32027 Valea Lui Mihai € 5,694,683 € 6,857,942 € 7,978,178 BH 27007 Vascau € 1,186,225 € 1,428,536 € 1,661,886 BH 27070 Abram € 1,290,824 € 1,554,502 € 1,808,428 BH 27169 Abramut € 1,424,155 € 1,715,068 € 1,995,222 BH 26742 Astileu € 2,216,064 € 2,668,742 € 3,104,677 BH 27212 Auseu € 1,540,408 € 1,855,069 € 2,158,092 BH 27285 Avram Iancu € 1,485,486 € 1,788,928 € 2,081,147 BH 27329 Balc € 958,006 € 1,153,699 € 1,342,154 BH 27383 Batar € 2,078,093 € 2,502,587 € 2,911,381 BH 27436 Biharia € 2,296,279 € 2,765,343 € 3,217,058 BH 27506 Boianu Mare € 656,063 € 790,078 € 919,136 BH 27560 Borod € 1,828,238 € 2,201,694 € 2,561,338 BH 27631 Bors € 6,889,413 € 8,296,720 € 9,651,979 BH 27686 Bratca € 2,310,740 € 2,782,757 € 3,237,317 BH 27757 Brusturi € 1,169,177 € 1,408,006 € 1,638,002 BH 27846 Budureasa € 2,690,599 € 3,240,210 € 3,769,494 BH 27908 Buduslau € 738,996 € 889,952 € 1,035,324 BH 27935 Bulz € 1,209,624 € 1,456,715 € 1,694,667 BH 27971 Buntesti € 1,698,448 € 2,045,391 € 2 ,379,503 BH 28077 Cabesti € 777,332 € 936,118 € 1,089,032 BH 28709 Campani € 1,212,363 € 1,460,013 € 1,698,505 BH 28139 Capalna € 1,131,505 € 1,362,638 € 1,585,223 BH 28193 Carpinet € 662,772 € 798,157 € 928,535 BH 28246 Cefa € 1,261,279 € 1,518,922 € 1,767,035 BH 28335 Ceica € 1,635,054 € 1,969,048 € 2,290,689 BH 28415 Cetariu € 1,272,878 € 1,532,890 € 1,783,286 BH 28497 Cherechiu € 808,105 € 973,177 € 1,132,144 BH 28530 Chislaz € 1,670,766 € 2,012,055 € 2,340,722 BH 28610 Ciuhoi € 1,186,269 € 1,428,589 € 1,661,947 BH 28665 Ciumeghiu € 1,823,341 € 2,195,797 € 2,554,478 BH 28763 Cociuba Mare € 1,428,967 € 1,720,863 € 2,001,964 BH 28816 Copacel € 1,072,551 € 1,291,642 € 1,502,630 BH 28889 Cristioru de Jos € 654,377 € 788,047 € 916,774 BH 28941 Curatele € 1,098,108 € 1,322,420 € 1,538,435 BH 29001 Curtuiuseni € 1,430,373 € 1,722,557 € 2,003,935 177 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BH 29038 Derna € 1,002,819 € 1,207,666 € 1,404,936 BH 29092 Diosig € 2,544,688 € 3,064,493 € 3,565,074 BH 29154 Dobresti € 1,611,144 € 1,940,254 € 2,2 57,193 BH 29243 Draganesti € 2,161,273 € 2,602,758 € 3,027,915 BH 29341 Dragesti € 933,958 € 1,124,738 € 1,308,463 BH 29403 Finis € 1,362,838 € 1,641,226 € 1,909,318 BH 32195 Gepiu € 900,189 € 1,084,072 € 1,261,153 BH 29467 Giris de Cris € 1,554,062 € 1,871,512 € 2,177,221 BH 29519 Hidiselu de Sus € 1,374,156 € 1,654,856 € 1,925,174 BH 29573 Holod € 1,976,423 € 2,380,149 € 2,768,943 BH 29662 Husasau de Tinca € 1,231,747 € 1,483,357 € 1,725,662 BH 29724 Ineu € 1,666,067 € 2,006,396 € 2,334,139 BH 29813 Lazareni € 1,384,456 € 1,667,261 € 1,939,605 BH 29760 Lazuri de Beius € 750,401 € 903,686 € 1,051,302 BH 29902 Lugasu de Jos € 2,106,482 € 2,536,775 € 2,951,154 BH 29948 Lunca € 1,222,000 € 1,471,619 € 1,712,006 BH 30014 Madaras € 2,062,883 € 2,48 4,270 € 2,890,072 BH 30069 Magesti € 1,290,050 € 1,553,570 € 1,807,344 BH 30149 Nojorid € 2,187,573 € 2,634,431 € 3,064,762 BH 30229 Olcea € 1,255,494 € 1,511,955 € 1,758,931 BH 30274 Osorhei € 3,293,175 € 3,965,875 € 4,613,696 BH 32161 Paleu € 1,767, 147 € 2,128,124 € 2,475,750 BH 30336 Pietroasa € 1,243,443 € 1,497,442 € 1,742,048 BH 30416 Pocola € 819,747 € 987,198 € 1,148,455 BH 30470 Pomezeu € 2,171,954 € 2,615,621 € 3,042,879 BH 30568 Popesti € 3,008,150 € 3,622,628 € 4,214,379 BH 30648 Rabagani € 1,410,903 € 1,699,110 € 1,976,658 BH 30719 Remetea € 1,488,761 € 1,792,872 € 2,085,735 BH 30773 Rieni € 2,324,849 € 2,799,748 € 3,257,083 BH 30844 Rosia € 1,050,870 € 1,265,532 € 1,472,255 BH 32187 Rosiori € 1,685,563 € 2,029,874 € 2,361,452 BH 30871 Sacadat € 1,116,248 € 1,344,265 € 1,563,849 BH 30988 Salacea € 1,218,860 € 1,467,838 € 1,707,607 BH 31011 Salard € 2,044,868 € 2,462,575 € 2,864,833 BH 31057 Sambata € 905,613 € 1,090,603 € 1,268,752 BH 32179 Sanicolaul Roman € 1,248,410 € 1,503, 424 € 1,749,007 178 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BH 26582 Sanmartin € 8,288,486 € 9,981,583 € 11,612,062 BH 26653 Santandrei € 2,434,879 € 2,932,254 € 3,411,234 BH 31128 Sarbi € 1,090,651 € 1,313,439 € 1,527,988 BH 31333 Simian € 1,492,338 € 1,797,179 € 2,090,746 BH 31379 Sinteu € 1,317,226 € 1,586,297 € 1,845,416 BH 31422 Soimi € 1,131,773 € 1,362,962 € 1,585,600 BH 31208 Spinus € 601,907 € 724,859 € 843,264 BH 31510 Suncuius € 1,340,600 € 1,614,446 € 1,878,163 BH 31262 Suplacul de Barcau € 3,637,856 € 4,380,965 € 5,096,590 BH 32153 Tamaseu € 1,050,773 € 1,265,416 € 1,472,120 BH 31609 Tarcaia € 693,936 € 835,688 € 972,196 BH 31565 Tarcea € 1,235,821 € 1,488,264 € 1,731,370 BH 31654 Tauteu € 2,462,009 € 2,964,926 € 3,449,242 BH 31878 Tetchea € 2,635,243 € 3,173,547 € 3,691,941 BH 31716 Tileagd € 2,676,892 € 3,223,703 € 3,750,291 BH 31789 Tinca € 2,967,616 € 3,573,813 € 4,157,591 BH 32201 Toboliu € 1,238,151 € 1,491,070 € 1,734,634 BH 31841 Tulca € 1,194,435 € 1,438,424 € 1,673,388 BH 31921 Uileacu de Beius € 1,250,748 € 1,506,240 € 1,752,282 BH 31976 Vadu Crisului € 1,605,216 € 1,933,115 € 2,248,887 BH 32090 Varciorog € 1,109,845 € 1,336,555 € 1,554,879 BH 32045 Viisoara € 984,400 € 1,185,485 € 1,379,132 BN 32394 Bistrita € 63,678,029 € 76,685,601 € 89,212,096 BN 32483 Beclean € 5,753,725 € 6,929,044 € 8,060,895 BN 32544 Nasaud € 5,511,474 € 6,637,308 € 7,721,503 BN 32599 Singeorz Bai € 13,333,306 € 16,056,913 € 18,679,789 BN 32633 Bistrita Birgaului € 2,547,664 € 3,068,077 € 3,569,244 BN 32660 Braniste € 859,012 € 1,034,484 € 1,203,465 BN 32704 Budacu De Jos € 1,470,440 € 1,770,808 € 2,060,067 BN 32768 Budesti € 700,883 € 844,053 € 981,928 BN 32811 Caianu Mic € 1,333,480 € 1,605,871 € 1,868,188 BN 32884 Cetate € 1,220,378 € 1,469,666 € 1,709,734 BN 33015 Chiochis € 1,224,945 € 1,475,166 € 1,716,132 BN 33122 Chiuza € 891,372 € 1,073,454 € 1,248,801 BN 32955 Ciceu Giurgesti € 587,459 € 707,460 € 823,023 BN 179953 Ciceu Mihaiesti € 646,563 € 778,637 € 905,826 179 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BN 33177 Cosbuc € 947,073 € 1,140,533 € 1,326,837 BN 33202 Dumitra € 2,009,569 € 2,420,066 € 2,815,381 BN 179686 Dumitrita € 1,545,224 € 1,860,868 € 2,164,838 BN 33248 Feldru € 2,048,458 € 2,466,898 € 2,869,863 BN 33275 Galatii Bistritei € 728,662 € 877,507 € 1,020,847 BN 33337 Ilva Mare € 1,471,781 € 1,772,423 € 2,061,946 BN 33364 Ilva Mica € 1,604,587 € 1,932,358 € 2,248,006 BN 33382 Josenii Birgaului € 1,550,197 € 1,866,858 € 2,171,806 BN 33435 Lechinta € 1,877,290 € 2,260,766 € 2,630,059 BN 33514 Lesu € 935,254 € 1,126,300 € 1,310,279 BN 33541 Livezile € 2,797,324 € 3,368,736 € 3,919,015 BN 33603 Lunca Ilvei € 4,017,885 € 4,838,622 € 5,629,004 BN 33729 Magura Ilvei € 1,402,771 € 1,689,316 € 1,965,264 BN 33621 Maieru € 2,964,976 € 3,570,634 € 4,153,893 BN 33765 Mariselu € 1,295,194 € 1,559,76 5 € 1,814,551 BN 33658 Matei € 930,626 € 1,120,725 € 1,303,795 BN 33845 Micestii De Cimpie € 1,010,711 € 1,217,170 € 1,415,993 BN 33881 Milas € 396,271 € 477,217 € 555,170 BN 33952 Monor € 2,255,606 € 2,716,361 € 3,160,075 BN 179659 Negrilesti € 559,4 21 € 673,695 € 783,742 BN 33989 Nimigea € 1,408,620 € 1,696,361 € 1,973,459 BN 34075 Nuseni € 1,326,867 € 1,597,908 € 1,858,924 BN 34155 Parva € 755,570 € 909,911 € 1,058,544 BN 34173 Petru Rares € 952,670 € 1,147,273 € 1,334,679 BN 179720 Poiana Ilvei € 532,385 € 641,136 € 745,865 BN 34235 Prundu Birgaului € 3,412,443 € 4,109,506 € 4,780,788 BN 34262 Rebra € 1,554,529 € 1,872,075 € 2,177,876 BN 34280 Rebrisoara € 1,424,359 € 1,715,314 € 1,995,508 BN 34333 Rodna € 2,010,941 € 2,421,717 € 2,817,302 BN 34360 Romuli € 1,115,038 € 1,342,808 € 1,562,154 BN 179944 Runcu Salvei € 769,634 € 926,848 € 1,078,247 BN 34397 Salva € 788,403 € 949,450 € 1,104,542 BN 34618 Sant € 1,552,139 € 1,869,196 € 2,174,527 BN 34645 Sieu € 978,845 € 1,178,795 € 1,371,349 BN 34690 Sieu Magherus € 1,773,190 € 2,135,401 € 2,484,216 BN 34770 Sieu Odorhei € 797,366 € 960,244 € 1,117,099 180 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BN 34850 Sieut € 1,078,338 € 1,298,611 € 1,510,737 BN 34422 Silivasu De Cimpie € 737,220 € 887,813 € 1,032,836 BN 34477 Sinmihaiu De Cimpie € 1,088,539 € 1,310,895 € 1,525,029 BN 34903 Sintereag € 1,313,092 € 1,581,318 € 1,839,625 BN 34547 Spermezeu € 1,198,499 € 1,443,318 € 1,679,082 BN 34985 Teaca € 1,886,406 € 2,271,745 € 2,642,831 BN 35054 Telciu € 2,882,171 € 3,470,915 € 4,037,885 BN 35090 Tiha Birgaului € 2,433,046 € 2,930,047 € 3,408,667 BN 35152 Tirlisua € 1,158,789 € 1,395,496 € 1,623,448 BN 35269 Uriu € 1,472,536 € 1,773,333 € 2,063,004 BN 35312 Urmenis € 1,122,136 € 1,351,355 € 1,572,097 BN 35429 Zagra € 2,260,582 € 2,722 ,353 € 3,167,046 BT 35731 Botosani € 62,278,129 € 74,999,743 € 87,250,855 BT 36006 Dorohoi € 11,463,764 € 13,805,478 € 16,060,585 BT 36453 Bucecea € 1,475,594 € 1,777,015 € 2,067,288 BT 35946 Darabani € 3,897,217 € 4,693,305 € 5,459,951 BT 37280 Flaminzi € 3,587,009 € 4,319,731 € 5,025,353 BT 36060 Saveni € 3,445,688 € 4,149,542 € 4,827,364 BT 39168 Stefanesti € 1,508,337 € 1,816,446 € 2,113,161 BT 40035 Adaseni € 448,182 € 539,733 € 627,897 BT 36131 Albesti € 1,663,862 € 2,003,740 € 2,331,049 BT 36202 Avrameni € 1,303,240 € 1,569,454 € 1,825,822 BT 36300 Baluseni € 1,336,503 € 1,609,512 € 1,872,424 BT 39983 Blandesti € 568,887 € 685,094 € 797,003 BT 36373 Braesti € 726,708 € 875,154 € 1,018,109 BT 36426 Broscauti € 931,783 € 1,122,119 € 1,305, 416 BT 36499 Calarasi € 1,803,554 € 2,171,968 € 2,526,756 BT 39967 Candesti € 775,627 € 934,065 € 1,086,644 BT 36532 Concesti € 800,140 € 963,585 € 1,120,986 BT 36569 Copalau € 1,014,081 € 1,221,229 € 1,420,715 BT 36649 Cordareni € 666,434 € 802,568 € 933,666 BT 36676 Corlateni € 757,959 € 912,788 € 1,061,891 BT 36756 Corni € 1,585,279 € 1,909,106 € 2,220,956 BT 39975 Cosula € 1,101,950 € 1,327,046 € 1,543,817 BT 36809 Cotusca € 1,415,674 € 1,704,855 € 1,983,341 BT 36907 Cristesti € 991,957 € 1,19 4,586 € 1,389,720 181 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BT 36952 Cristinesti € 1,154,420 € 1,390,234 € 1,617,327 BT 35759 Curtesti € 1,243,859 € 1,497,943 € 1,742,630 BT 37057 Dingeni € 1,060,446 € 1,277,064 € 1,485,671 BT 37011 Dersca € 862,389 € 1,038,550 € 1,208,195 BT 39959 Dimacheni € 610,141 € 734,775 € 854,800 BT 37100 Dobarceni € 1,560,024 € 1,878,691 € 2,185,573 BT 37173 Draguseni € 1,070,713 € 1,289,429 € 1,500,055 BT 37217 Durnesti € 1,258,528 € 1,515,609 € 1,763,182 BT 37324 Frumusica € 1,417,089 € 1,706,560 € 1,985,324 BT 37397 George Enescu € 961,689 € 1,158,134 € 1,347,314 BT 37459 Gorbanesti € 963,507 € 1,160,323 € 1,349,861 BT 37618 Hanesti € 955,985 € 1,151,265 € 1,339,322 BT 37547 Havarna € 1,379,597 € 1,661,409 € 1,932,798 BT 37672 Hiliseu Horia € 839,911 € 1,01 1,480 € 1,176,704 BT 37734 Hlipiceni € 1,145,422 € 1,379,398 € 1,604,721 BT 37770 Hudesti € 1,798,827 € 2,166,275 € 2,520,134 BT 37823 Ibanesti € 1,077,762 € 1,297,917 € 1,509,930 BT 37850 Leorda € 812,483 € 978,450 € 1,138,278 BT 39942 Lozna € 646,48 7 € 778,546 € 905,720 BT 37912 Lunca € 1,522,020 € 1,832,924 € 2,132,330 BT 37958 Manoleasa € 1,407,862 € 1,695,447 € 1,972,396 BT 38063 Mihai Eminescu € 2,738,088 € 3,297,400 € 3,836,026 BT 38161 Mihaileni € 834,906 € 1,005,453 € 1,169,692 BT 38241 Mihalaseni € 1,308,612 € 1,575,924 € 1,833,349 BT 38321 Mileanca € 749,741 € 902,891 € 1,050,377 BT 38376 Mitoc € 615,218 € 740,889 € 861,913 BT 38456 Nicseni € 821,504 € 989,313 € 1,150,917 BT 38492 Paltinis € 1,890,468 € 2,276,636 € 2,648,522 BT 38544 Pomarla € 770,775 € 928,221 € 1,079,845 BT 38580 Prajeni € 920,876 € 1,108,985 € 1,290,136 BT 35839 Rachiti € 1,501,963 € 1,808,770 € 2,104,230 BT 38633 Radauti Prut € 964,852 € 1,161,944 € 1,351,746 BT 38679 Rauseni € 1,063,136 € 1,280,304 € 1,489,4 40 BT 38731 Ripiceni € 589,699 € 710,157 € 826,161 BT 38811 Roma € 1,191,937 € 1,435,415 € 1,669,888 BT 38848 Romanesti € 723,587 € 871,394 € 1,013,736 182 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BT 38893 Santa Mare € 831,515 € 1,001,369 € 1,164,941 BT 39122 Sendriceni € 1,293,167 € 1,557,323 € 1,811,710 BT 35884 Stauceni € 1,750,091 € 2,107,584 € 2,451,855 BT 39220 Stiubieni € 1,328,677 € 1,600,087 € 1,861,459 BT 38982 Suharau € 1,387,504 € 1,670,930 € 1,943,875 BT 39051 Sulita € 1,129,352 € 1,360,046 € 1,582,208 BT 39266 Todireni € 884,05 3 € 1,064,639 € 1,238,547 BT 39328 Trusesti € 1,736,978 € 2,091,792 € 2,433,484 BT 39391 Tudora € 1,283,282 € 1,545,419 € 1,797,861 BT 39417 Ungureni € 1,960,462 € 2,360,928 € 2,746,582 BT 39532 Unteni € 796,170 € 958,804 € 1,115,424 BT 39612 Vaculesti € 877,270 € 1,056,470 € 1,229,043 BT 39694 Virfu Cimpului € 1,417,196 € 1,706,688 € 1,985,473 BT 39658 Viisoara € 690,322 € 831,335 € 967,133 BT 39738 Vladeni € 1,504,243 € 1,811,517 € 2,107,426 BT 39792 Vlasinesti € 1,071,179 € 1,289,990 € 1,500,708 BT 39836 Vorniceni € 1,066,983 € 1,284,937 € 1,494,829 BT 39872 Vorona € 2,089,029 € 2,515,757 € 2,926,703 BV 40198 Brasov € 268,006,704 € 322,752,690 € 375,473,932 BV 40241 Codlea € 17,234,712 € 20,755,264 € 24,145,610 BV 40278 Fagaras € 22,697,323 € 27,333,727 € 31,798,656 BV 40438 Sacele € 23,038,158 € 27,744,185 € 32,276,163 BV 40214 Ghimbav € 12,489,088 € 15,040,246 € 17,497,051 BV 40303 Predeal € 7,507,679 € 9,041,279 € 10,518,161 BV 40367 Rasnov € 12,487,562 € 15,038,408 € 17,494,913 BV 40394 Rupea € 4,477,436 € 5,392,046 € 6,272,829 BV 40465 Victoria € 4,625,488 € 5,570,341 € 6,480,249 BV 40492 Zarnesti € 14,712,256 € 17,717,543 € 20,611,681 BV 40526 Apata € 3,550,996 € 4,276,361 € 4,974,899 BV 42498 Augustin € 644,716 € 776,413 € 903, 239 BV 40544 Beclean € 1,864,235 € 2,245,044 € 2,611,769 BV 40606 Bod € 3,384,358 € 4,075,685 € 4,741,443 BV 40633 Bran € 4,068,701 € 4,899,819 € 5,700,198 BV 40688 Budila € 2,356,531 € 2,837,902 € 3,301,470 BV 40704 Bunesti € 2,293,930 € 2,762,513 € 3,213,767 BV 40768 Cata € 1,805,998 € 2,174,910 € 2,530,179 183 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BV 40820 Cincu € 1,788,947 € 2,154,376 € 2,506,291 BV 40857 Comana € 2,483,142 € 2,990,376 € 3,478,850 BV 40900 Cristian € 12,777,156 € 15,387,158 € 17,900,630 BV 42456 Crizbav € 1,995,458 € 2,403,073 € 2,795,611 BV 42480 Dragus € 1,145,130 € 1,379,047 € 1,604,312 BV 40928 Dumbravita € 3,608,837 € 4,346,017 € 5,055,934 BV 40955 Feldioara € 6,800,683 € 8,189,865 € 9,527,670 BV 40991 Fundata € 1,454,314 € 1,751,388 € 2,037,476 BV 41033 Halchiu € 3,690,814 € 4,444,740 € 5,170,783 BV 41088 Harman € 4,222,988 € 5,085,622 € 5,916,352 BV 41113 Hirseni € 1,406,428 € 1,693,721 € 1,970,388 BV 41177 Hoghiz € 3,826,819 € 4,608,527 € 5,361,324 BV 42472 Holbav € 1,418,795 € 1,708,614 € 1,987,714 BV 41248 Homorod € 1,378,072 € 1,659,572 € 1,930,660 BV 41284 Jibert € 3,066,241 € 3,692,584 € 4,295,763 BV 41346 Lisa € 1,803,946 € 2,172,439 € 2,527,305 BV 41382 Maierus € 2,545,457 € 3,065,420 € 3,566,152 BV 41417 Mandra € 3,923,662 € 4,725,152 € 5,49 7,000 BV 41471 Moieciu € 2,539,052 € 3,057,706 € 3,557,179 BV 41541 Ormenis € 1,846,586 € 2,223,789 € 2,587,043 BV 41578 Parau € 1,240,508 € 1,493,908 € 1,737,936 BV 41621 Poiana Marului € 1,747,853 € 2,104,888 € 2,448,719 BV 41667 Prejmer € 8,019,280 € 9,657,386 € 11,234,907 BV 41701 Racos € 2,019,935 € 2,432,549 € 2,829,903 BV 41738 Recea € 1,710,099 € 2,059,423 € 2,395,827 BV 42464 Sambata de Sus € 4,101,945 € 4,939,853 € 5,746,772 BV 41925 Sanpetru € 4,281,435 € 5,156,008 € 5,998,235 BV 41818 Sercaia € 2,736,716 € 3,295,747 € 3,834,103 BV 41854 Sinca € 1,970,148 € 2,372,593 € 2,760,153 BV 42449 Sinca-Noua € 1,712,966 € 2,062,875 € 2,399,843 BV 41943 Soars € 1,287,396 € 1,550,373 € 1,803,625 BV 42003 Tarlungeni € 6,766,107 € 8,148,226 € 9,47 9,229 BV 42058 Teliu € 2,312,140 € 2,784,443 € 3,239,278 BV 42076 Ticus € 612,494 € 737,609 € 858,096 BV 42101 Ucea € 2,856,361 € 3,439,833 € 4,001,725 BV 42156 Ungra € 2,114,023 € 2,545,857 € 2,961,719 184 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BV 42183 Vama Buzaului € 2,719,776 € 3,275,348 € 3,810,372 BV 42236 Vistea € 1,392,168 € 1,676,548 € 1,950,410 BV 42307 Voila € 2,609,143 € 3,142,115 € 3,655,376 BV 42398 Vulcan € 2,915,510 € 3,511,064 € 4,084,592 BR 42682 Braila € 161,996,688 € 195,087,907 € 226,955,269 BR 42753 Faurei € 1,974,617 € 2,377,974 € 2,766,413 BR 43331 Ianca € 5,452,234 € 6,565,967 € 7,638,510 BR 43411 Insuratei € 3,767,670 € 4,537,295 € 5,278,457 BR 42824 Baraganu € 1,667,742 € 2,008,414 € 2,336,486 BR 42842 Bertestii de Jos € 1,189,498 € 1,432,478 € 1,666,472 BR 42913 Bordei Verde € 973,624 € 1,172,507 € 1,364,035 BR 44560 Cazasu € 1,274,677 € 1,535,056 € 1,785,806 BR 42708 Chiscani € 4,597,820 € 5,537,021 € 6,441,487 BR 42968 Ciocile € 1,572,159 € 1,893,305 € 2,202,574 BR 43019 Ciresu € 1,573,520 € 1,894,944 € 2,204,481 BR 43073 Dudesti € 1,920,738 € 2,313,089 € 2,690,930 BR 43117 Frecatei € 2,297,334 € 2,766,612 € 3,218,535 BR 43180 Galbenu € 1,556,699 € 1,874,687 € 2,180,915 BR 43242 Gemenele € 954,379 € 1,149,330 € 1,337,072 BR 43279 Gradistea € 1,555,4 73 € 1,873,211 € 2,179,197 BR 43313 Gropeni € 2,129,365 € 2,564,333 € 2,983,213 BR 43466 Jirlau € 1,527,137 € 1,839,086 € 2,139,499 BR 43493 Marasu € 2,219,775 € 2,673,210 € 3,109,875 BR 43563 Maxineni € 1,645,967 € 1,982,191 € 2,305,979 BR 43625 Mircea Voda € 1,742,350 € 2,098,262 € 2,441,010 BR 43652 Movila Miresii € 1,596,769 € 1,922,943 € 2,237,053 BR 43698 Racovita € 752,084 € 905,713 € 1,053,660 BR 43732 Ramnicelu € 994,680 € 1,197,864 € 1,393,533 BR 43787 Romanu € 980,655 € 1,180,974 € 1,373 ,885 BR 43812 Rosiori € 1,523,608 € 1,834,837 € 2,134,556 BR 43867 Salcia Tudor € 1,886,290 € 2,271,604 € 2,642,668 BR 43929 Scortaru Nou € 711,680 € 857,055 € 997,054 BR 43992 Silistea € 1,609,208 € 1,937,922 € 2,254,479 BR 44060 Stancuta € 2,814,667 € 3,389,621 € 3,943,312 BR 44113 Surdila Gaiseanca € 1,384,489 € 1,667,299 € 1,939,651 BR 42771 Surdila Greci € 873,548 € 1,051,988 € 1,223,829 185 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BR 44140 Sutesti € 2,712,082 € 3,266,081 € 3,799,592 BR 44177 Tichilesti € 1,511,447 € 1,820,192 € 2,117,51 7 BR 44202 Traian € 1,794,318 € 2,160,845 € 2,513,817 BR 44257 Tudor Vladimirescu € 1,860,302 € 2,240,308 € 2,606,259 BR 44300 Tufesti € 2,371,163 € 2,855,523 € 3,321,969 BR 44328 Ulmu € 1,822,088 € 2,194,287 € 2,552,721 BR 44355 Unirea € 1,330,891 € 1,602,753 € 1,864,561 BR 44391 Vadeni € 2,023,769 € 2,437,166 € 2,835,274 BR 44435 Victoria € 1,893,787 € 2,280,633 € 2,653,172 BR 44462 Visani € 1,093,708 € 1,317,120 € 1,532,270 BR 44505 Viziru € 2,075,522 € 2,499,491 € 2,907,780 BR 44532 Zavoaia € 1,592,936 € 1,918,326 € 2,231,682 BZ 44818 Buzau € 118,236,365 € 142,388,620 € 165,647,621 BZ 44845 Rimnicu Sarat € 16,357,621 € 19,699,008 € 22,916,816 BZ 47916 Nehoiu € 4,184,697 € 5,039,509 € 5,862,706 BZ 48744 Pogoanele € 2,993,064 € 3,604,460 € 4,193,244 BZ 48325 Patirlagele € 2,686,278 € 3,235,006 € 3,763,440 BZ 44863 Amaru € 1,564,191 € 1,883,710 € 2,191,412 BZ 44989 Balaceanu € 583,417 € 702,592 € 817,360 BZ 44934 Balta Alba € 982,166 € 1,182,794 € 1,376,002 BZ 45003 Beceni € 1,354,858 € 1,631,616 € 1,898,138 BZ 45101 Berca € 2,866,132 € 3,451,599 € 4,015,414 BZ 45245 Bisoca € 761,168 € 916,652 € 1,066,386 BZ 45334 Blajani € 464,042 € 558,832 € 650,116 BZ 45361 Boldu € 872,936 € 1,051,251 € 1,222,972 BZ 45389 Bozioru € 778,736 € 937,810 € 1,091,000 BZ 45496 Bradeanu € 929,882 € 1,119,830 € 1,302,753 BZ 45539 Braiesti € 798,935 € 962,134 € 1,119,297 BZ 45619 Breaza € 1,344,500 € 1,619,143 € 1,883,628 BZ 45673 Buda € 1,021,019 € 1,229,583 € 1,430,434 BZ 45815 C. A. Rosetti € 1,305,570 € 1,572,260 € 1,829,087 BZ 45753 Calvini € 900,058 € 1,083,913 € 1,260,969 BZ 45888 Canesti € 504,252 € 607,257 € 706,451 BZ 45959 Catina € 844,595 € 1,017,121 € 1,183,266 BZ 46019 Cernatesti € 1,101,484 € 1,326,485 € 1,543,164 BZ 46108 Chilii € 599, 206 € 721,606 € 839,480 186 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BZ 46180 Chiojdu € 918,750 € 1,106,423 € 1,287,156 BZ 46251 Cilibia € 1,056,582 € 1,272,411 € 1,480,257 BZ 46313 Cislau € 2,017,873 € 2,430,066 € 2,827,014 BZ 46377 Cochirleanca € 1,723,943 € 2,076,095 € 2,415,222 BZ 46439 Colti € 390,447 € 470,204 € 547,011 BZ 46484 Costesti € 1,497,044 € 1,802,846 € 2,097,339 BZ 46554 Cozieni € 780,213 € 939,588 € 1,093,069 BZ 50564 Florica € 723,234 € 870,970 € 1,013,242 BZ 46769 Galbinasi € 1,780,105 € 2,143,728 € 2,493,904 BZ 46803 Gheraseni € 1,334,827 € 1,607,493 € 1,870,075 BZ 46830 Ghergheasa € 873,296 € 1,051,686 € 1,223,477 BZ 46867 Glodeanu Sarat € 2,226,932 € 2,681,829 € 3,119,902 BZ 46910 Glodeanu Silistea € 1,692,746 € 2,038,524 € 2,371,515 BZ 47006 Grebanu € 1,611,367 € 1 ,940,522 € 2,257,504 BZ 47079 Gura Teghii € 1,301,137 € 1,566,921 € 1,822,875 BZ 47159 Largu € 985,904 € 1,187,295 € 1,381,238 BZ 47186 Lopatari € 1,149,848 € 1,384,728 € 1,610,922 BZ 47300 Luciu € 1,420,519 € 1,710,690 € 1,990,129 BZ 47337 Magura € 9 18,755 € 1,106,431 € 1,287,165 BZ 47630 Manzalesti € 983,939 € 1,184,929 € 1,378,486 BZ 47373 Maracineni € 3,051,965 € 3,675,392 € 4,275,763 BZ 47417 Margaritesti € 374,560 € 451,072 € 524,754 BZ 47453 Merei € 2,471,473 € 2,976,323 € 3,462,502 BZ 47578 Mihailesti € 732,210 € 881,779 € 1,025,817 BZ 47774 Movila Banului € 1,063,257 € 1,280,450 € 1,489,610 BZ 47818 Murgesti € 615,074 € 740,715 € 861,710 BZ 47854 Naeni € 731,982 € 881,504 € 1,025,497 BZ 48021 Odaile € 604,297 € 727,737 € 846,612 BZ 48138 Padina € 2,078,889 € 2,503,546 € 2,912,497 BZ 48227 Panatau € 938,504 € 1,130,213 € 1,314,832 BZ 48165 Pardosi € 527,174 € 634,860 € 738,563 BZ 48557 Pirscov € 1,508,263 € 1,816,357 € 2,113,057 BZ 48487 Pietroasele € 1,363,962 € 1,642,580 € 1,910,8 93 BZ 48682 Podgoria € 1,615,485 € 1,945,481 € 2,263,273 BZ 48771 Posta Calnau € 1,518,376 € 1,828,536 € 2,127,226 BZ 48842 Puiesti € 1,413,257 € 1,701,945 € 1,979,955 187 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario BZ 48922 Racoviteni € 850,880 € 1,024,691 € 1,192,072 BZ 48968 Rimnicelu € 1,159,47 8 € 1,396,326 € 1,624,414 BZ 49019 Robeasca € 730,377 € 879,572 € 1,023,249 BZ 49046 Rusetu € 1,514,093 € 1,823,378 € 2,121,224 BZ 49073 Sageata € 2,100,736 € 2,529,856 € 2,943,104 BZ 49153 Sahateni € 1,541,252 € 1,856,085 € 2,159,274 BZ 49206 Sapoca € 1,215,236 € 1,463,474 € 1,702,530 BZ 49233 Sarulesti € 440,242 € 530,170 € 616,773 BZ 49313 Scortoasa € 1,210,682 € 1,457,989 € 1,696,149 BZ 49439 Scutelnici € 837,427 € 1,008,489 € 1,173,224 BZ 49484 Siriu € 1,290,305 € 1,553,877 € 1,807,701 BZ 49545 Smeeni € 2,546,828 € 3,067,071 € 3,568,074 BZ 49625 Stalpu € 894,335 € 1,077,021 € 1,252,951 BZ 49849 Tintesti € 1,706,869 € 2,055,533 € 2,391,301 BZ 49643 Tisau € 1,226,314 € 1,476,814 € 1,718,049 BZ 49769 Topliceni € 929,853 € 1,119,795 € 1,302,71 3 BZ 49894 Ulmeni € 945,261 € 1,138,351 € 1,324,299 BZ 50549 Unguriu € 710,272 € 855,360 € 995,081 BZ 49956 Vadu Pasii € 2,395,837 € 2,885,237 € 3,356,536 BZ 50399 Valcelele € 809,203 € 974,500 € 1,133,683 BZ 50022 Valea Ramnicului € 1,563,622 € 1,883 ,024 € 2,190,614 BZ 50068 Valea Salciei € 410,631 € 494,511 € 575,289 BZ 50102 Vernesti € 2,664,085 € 3,208,280 € 3,732,349 BZ 50228 Vintila Voda € 1,071,251 € 1,290,077 € 1,500,809 BZ 50326 Viperesti € 1,312,837 € 1,581,012 € 1,839,268 BZ 50415 Zarnesti € 1,833,076 € 2,207,520 € 2,568,116 BZ 50479 Ziduri € 1,567,351 € 1,887,515 € 2,195,839 CS 51010 Caransebes € 14,409,961 € 17,353,497 € 20,188,169 CS 50790 Resita € 56,693,413 € 68,274,231 € 79,426,740 CS 50889 Anina € 4,674,249 € 5,629,062 € 6,548 ,562 CS 50969 Bocşa € 5,595,622 € 6,738,645 € 7,839,394 CS 50923 Herculane € 7,228,395 € 8,704,946 € 10,126,888 CS 51056 Moldova Nouă € 6,821,806 € 8,215,303 € 9,557,262 CS 51118 Oraviţa € 6,439,418 € 7,754,804 € 9,021,542 CS 51207 Oţelu Roşu € 6,436, 317 € 7,751,070 € 9,017,197 CS 51243 Armenis € 1,161,661 € 1,398,955 € 1,627,473 188 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CS 51305 Bania € 764,979 € 921,242 € 1,071,726 CS 51332 Bautari € 1,210,485 € 1,457,752 € 1,695,874 CS 51387 Berliste € 440,543 € 530,533 € 617,195 CS 51449 Berzeasca € 3 ,225,499 € 3,884,375 € 4,518,883 CS 51500 Berzovia € 1,603,252 € 1,930,750 € 2,246,135 CS 51546 Bolvasnita € 518,650 € 624,595 € 726,621 CS 51573 Bozovici € 1,884,435 € 2,269,371 € 2,640,070 CS 51626 Brebu € 1,231,828 € 1,483,454 € 1,725,775 CS 51662 Brebu Nou € 295,620 € 356,007 € 414,160 CS 51699 Buchin € 2,093,031 € 2,520,576 € 2,932,309 CS 51751 Bucosnita € 1,113,050 € 1,340,414 € 1,559,369 CS 51804 Carasova € 1,068,279 € 1,286,497 € 1,496,645 CS 51840 Carbunari € 527,847 € 635,671 € 739,506 CS 51948 Ciclova Romana € 555,387 € 668,836 € 778,090 CS 51984 Ciuchici € 745,396 € 897,659 € 1,044,291 CS 52035 Ciudanovita € 344,468 € 414,833 € 482,595 CS 52062 Copacele € 345,402 € 415,958 € 483,904 CS 52115 Cornea € 874,620 € 1,053,280 € 1,225,331 CS 52160 Cornereva € 1,652,305 € 1,989,823 € 2,314,858 CS 51877 C-Tin Daicovici € 1,066,599 € 1,284,474 € 1,494,292 CS 52570 Dalboset € 597,147 € 719,127 € 836,595 CS 52650 Doclin € 921,146 € 1,109,309 € 1,290,513 CS 52696 Dognecea € 701,920 € 845,302 € 983,381 CS 52721 Domasnea € 1,611,926 € 1,941,196 € 2,258,288 CS 53700 Eftimie Murgu € 728,182 € 876,928 € 1,020,173 CS 52758 Ezeris € 628,587 € 756,989 € 880,642 CS 52785 Farliug € 900,867 € 1,084,888 € 1,262,103 CS 52856 Forotic € 777,714 € 936,5 78 € 1,089,567 CS 52909 Garnic € 434,277 € 522,987 € 608,416 CS 52936 Glimboca € 729,916 € 879,017 € 1,022,603 CS 52954 Goruia € 442,759 € 533,202 € 620,300 CS 52990 Gradinari € 744,975 € 897,152 € 1,043,700 CS 53023 Iablanita € 1,195,664 € 1,439,904 € 1,675,110 CS 53069 Lapusnicel € 539,975 € 650,276 € 756,498 CS 53103 Lapusnicu Mare € 801,859 € 965,655 € 1,123,394 CS 53130 Luncavita € 1,286,779 € 1,549,631 € 1,802,761 189 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CS 53167 Lupac € 1,366,678 € 1,645,850 € 1,914,698 CS 53210 Marga € 491,608 € 592,029 € 688,736 CS 53247 Maureni € 1,320,653 € 1,590,425 € 1,850,218 CS 53274 Mehadia € 2,475,404 € 2,981,057 € 3,468,009 CS 53327 Mehadica € 965,687 € 1,162,949 € 1,352,915 CS 53345 Naidas € 760,343 € 915,659 € 1,065,231 CS 53372 Obreja € 1,190,554 € 1,433,750 € 1,667,951 CS 50987 Ocna de Fier € 263,380 € 317,181 € 368,992 CS 53425 Paltinis € 1,107,788 € 1,334,076 € 1,551,996 CS 53489 Pescari € 809,658 € 975,048 € 1,134,320 CS 53513 Pojojena € 1,509,811 € 1,818,222 € 2,115,226 CS 53577 Prigor € 913,367 € 1,099,941 € 1,279,615 CS 53675 Racajdia € 1,233,118 € 1,485,008 € 1,727,582 CS 53639 Ramna € 674,905 € 812,768 € 945,533 CS 53728 Rusca Montana € 1,304,410 € 1,570,863 € 1,827,462 CS 53755 Sacu € 808,712 € 973,909 € 1,132,996 CS 53791 Sasca Montana € 690,812 € 831,925 € 967,819 CS 53853 Sichevita € 896,848 € 1,080,048 € 1,256,473 CS 54056 Slatina Timis € 1,787,293 € 2,152,384 € 2,503,974 CS 54109 Socol € 720,251 € 867,377 € 1,009,062 CS 54163 Sopotu Nou € 628,395 € 756,758 € 880,374 CS 54270 Teregova € 1,084,613 € 1,306,167 € 1,519,528 CS 54305 Ticvaniu Mare € 735,710 € 885,994 € 1,030,720 CS 54350 Tirnova € 774,232 € 932,386 € 1,084,690 CS 54387 Toplet € 922,720 € 1,111,205 € 1,292,719 CS 54412 Turnu Ruieni € 1,119,591 € 1,348,291 € 1,568,533 CS 54485 Valiug € 714,739 € 860,739 € 1,001,340 CS 54500 Varadia € 674,453 € 812,225 € 944,900 CS 54537 Vermes € 1,146,891 € 1,381,168 € 1,606,780 CS 54573 Vrani € 626,414 € 754,372 € 877,598 CS 54617 Zavoi € 1,757,798 € 2,116,865 € 2,462,6 52 CS 54699 Zorlentiu Mare € 661,770 € 796,950 € 927,131 CL 92569 Calarasi € 46,403,808 € 55,882,759 € 65,011,136 CL 100610 Oltenita € 10,859,700 € 13,078,021 € 15,214,299 CL 101458 Budesti € 2,114,928 € 2,546,947 € 2,962,987 CL 103032 Fundulea € 2,77 4,401 € 3,341,131 € 3,886,900 190 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CL 93888 Lehliu Gara € 6,999,947 € 8,429,833 € 9,806,836 CL 94125 Al.Odobescu € 1,189,529 € 1,432,515 € 1,666,515 CL 101083 Belciugatele € 589,744 € 710,211 € 826,223 CL 92961 Borcea € 4,040,162 € 4,865,450 € 5,660,215 CL 101724 Cascioarele € 604,517 € 728,002 € 846,920 CL 101804 Chirnogi € 4,000,913 € 4,818,183 € 5,605,227 CL 101822 Chiselet € 1,260,053 € 1,517,445 € 1,765,318 CL 93085 Ciocanesti € 2,515,144 € 3,028,915 € 3,523,684 CL 180055 Crivat € 1,161,285 € 1,398 ,502 € 1,626,946 CL 102419 Curcani € 1,814,582 € 2,185,249 € 2,542,207 CL 93281 Cuza Voda € 1,976,492 € 2,380,232 € 2,769,040 CL 93325 Dichiseni € 1,228,969 € 1,480,012 € 1,721,770 CL 93370 Dor Marunt € 2,408,343 € 2,900,297 € 3,374,057 CL 93441 Dorobantu € 1,142,548 € 1,375,938 € 1,600,695 CL 93487 Dragalina € 3,243,771 € 3,906,379 € 4,544,481 CL 93539 Dragos Voda € 1,783,807 € 2,148,187 € 2,499,090 CL 102838 Frasinet € 823,339 € 991,523 € 1,153,487 CL 102945 Frumusani € 1,569,523 € 1,890,131 € 2,198,882 CL 103014 Fundeni € 2,283,903 € 2,750,438 € 3,199,718 CL 179962 Galbinasi € 1,303,640 € 1,569,936 € 1,826,383 CL 93664 Gradistea € 1,800,478 € 2,168,263 € 2,522,446 CL 103568 Gurbanesti € 982,942 € 1,183,728 € 1,377,088 CL 103764 Ileana € 1,88 8,735 € 2,274,549 € 2,646,094 CL 93771 Independenta € 1,511,770 € 1,820,581 € 2,117,970 CL 93815 Jegalia € 1,578,169 € 1,900,543 € 2,210,995 CL 93851 Lehliu Sat € 1,498,730 € 1,804,877 € 2,099,702 CL 104083 Luica € 806,763 € 971,561 € 1,130,264 CL 93931 Lupsanu € 1,233,660 € 1,485,661 € 1,728,342 CL 104181 Manastirea € 1,956,728 € 2,356,430 € 2,741,350 CL 100638 Mitreni € 1,264,097 € 1,522,316 € 1,770,984 CL 92587 Modelu € 3,886,792 € 4,680,750 € 5,445,345 CL 104323 Nana € 871,493 € 1,049,514 € 1,2 20,951 CL 104341 Nic.Balcescu € 530,154 € 638,449 € 742,739 CL 94223 Perisoru € 1,669,208 € 2,010,178 € 2,338,539 CL 104635 Plataresti € 1,792,845 € 2,159,071 € 2,511,752 CL 104751 Radovanu € 1,482,228 € 1,785,004 € 2,076,582 191 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CL 94312 Roseti € 2,258,7 00 € 2,720,087 € 3,164,409 CL 104886 Sarulesti € 1,344,093 € 1,618,652 € 1,883,057 CL 105222 Sohatu € 1,025,964 € 1,235,539 € 1,437,362 CL 105384 Soldanu € 2,041,334 € 2,458,320 € 2,859,883 CL 105259 Spantov € 1,070,342 € 1,288,981 € 1,499,535 CL 94562 Stefan cel Mare € 952,708 € 1,147,318 € 1,334,731 CL 94580 Stefan Voda € 1,542,551 € 1,857,650 € 2,161,095 CL 105455 Tamadau Mare € 1,213,596 € 1,461,499 € 1,700,233 CL 105605 Ulmeni € 1,463,551 € 1,762,512 € 2,050,416 CL 94606 Ulmu € 644,997 € 776,7 51 € 903,632 CL 94651 Unirea € 1,065,695 € 1,283,385 € 1,493,024 CL 94731 Valcelele € 1,062,420 € 1,279,441 € 1,488,436 CL 105712 Valea Argovei € 1,088,426 € 1,310,759 € 1,524,870 CL 105829 Vasilati € 1,875,192 € 2,258,239 € 2,627,120 CL 94768 Vlad Tepes € 1,113,628 € 1,341,110 € 1,560,179 CJ 55357 Campia-Turzii € 15,293,526 € 18,417,550 € 21,426,033 CJ 54975 Cluj-Napoca € 333,103,690 € 401,147,100 € 466,673,970 CJ 55008 Dej € 22,821,146 € 27,482,843 € 31,972,130 CJ 55384 Gherla € 13,209,651 € 15,9 07,999 € 18,506,551 CJ 55259 Turda € 35,990,492 € 43,342,304 € 50,422,215 CJ 55446 Huedin € 7,086,620 € 8,534,210 € 9,928,263 CJ 55473 Aghiresu € 3,884,782 € 4,678,331 € 5,442,530 CJ 55598 Aiton € 1,142,921 € 1,376,387 € 1,601,218 CJ 55623 Alunis € 73 4,093 € 884,047 € 1,028,455 CJ 55687 Apahida € 8,487,028 € 10,220,681 € 11,890,217 CJ 55776 Aschileu € 1,449,600 € 1,745,711 € 2,030,870 CJ 55838 Baciu € 5,648,781 € 6,802,663 € 7,913,869 CJ 55918 Baisoara € 1,511,334 € 1,820,056 € 2,117,360 CJ 56014 Belis € 1,456,913 € 1,754,518 € 2,041,117 CJ 56096 Bobilna € 1,930,706 € 2,325,094 € 2,704,895 CJ 56210 Bontida € 2,694,276 € 3,244,639 € 3,774,646 CJ 56265 Borsa € 1,208,546 € 1,455,417 € 1,693,157 CJ 56327 Buza € 1,944,065 € 2,341,181 € 2,723,609 CJ 56354 Caianu € 1,281,886 € 1,543,738 € 1,795,906 CJ 56425 Calarasi € 1,743,490 € 2,099,634 € 2,442,607 CJ 56461 Calatele € 1,826,522 € 2,199,628 € 2,558,934 192 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CJ 56522 Camarasu € 1,384,100 € 1,666,832 € 1,939,107 CJ 56568 Capusu Mare € 1,746,503 € 2,103 ,262 € 2,446,828 CJ 56666 Caseiu € 2,112,764 € 2,544,341 € 2,959,955 CJ 56773 Catina € 1,188,620 € 1,431,421 € 1,665,242 CJ 56844 Ceanu Mare € 2,544,543 € 3,064,319 € 3,564,872 CJ 56988 Chinteni € 3,481,127 € 4,192,220 € 4,877,014 CJ 57083 Chiuiesti € 1,316,594 € 1,585,536 € 1,844,532 CJ 57314 Citcau € 1,742,619 € 2,098,585 € 2,441,387 CJ 57163 Ciucea € 875,657 € 1,054,528 € 1,226,784 CJ 57225 Ciurila € 1,262,445 € 1,520,326 € 1,768,670 CJ 57350 Cojocna € 1,818,940 € 2,190,496 € 2,548,311 CJ 57449 Cornesti € 1,772,919 € 2,135,075 € 2,483,837 CJ 55062 Cuzdrioara € 1,425,469 € 1,716,651 € 1,997,064 CJ 57546 Dabica € 985,753 € 1,187,114 € 1,381,028 CJ 57582 Feleacu € 2,353,140 € 2,833,818 € 3,296,719 CJ 57644 Fizesu Gherlii € 1,244,156 € 1,498,301 € 1,743,046 CJ 57706 Floresti € 13,983,386 € 16,839,785 € 19,590,543 CJ 57742 Frata € 1,976,789 € 2,380,590 € 2,769,456 CJ 57831 Geaca € 1,225,086 € 1,475,336 € 1,716,330 CJ 57902 Gilau € 6,039,068 € 7,272,674 € 8,460,656 CJ 57948 Girbau € 1,472,844 € 1,773,703 € 2,063,435 CJ 58008 Iara € 2,173,597 € 2,617,599 € 3,045,181 CJ 58142 Iclod € 2,866,580 € 3,452,139 € 4,016,041 CJ 58204 Izvoru Crisului € 1,345,539 € 1,620,394 € 1,885,083 CJ 55106 Jichisu de Jos € 1,090,680 € 1,313,474 € 1,528,029 CJ 58259 Jucu € 4,632,286 € 5,578,527 € 6,489,772 CJ 58311 Luna € 2,745,045 € 3,305,778 € 3,845,773 CJ 58357 Maguri-Racatau € 1,625,946 € 1,958,080 € 2,277,929 CJ 58393 Manastireni € 1,145,465 € 1,379,450 € 1,604,781 CJ 58464 Margau € 1,490,749 € 1,795,266 € 2,088,521 CJ 58534 Marisel € 1,322,194 € 1,592,279 € 1,852,376 CJ 55160 Mica € 1,815,538 € 2,186,400 € 2,543,546 CJ 55277 Mihai Viteazu € 5,155,990 € 6,209,209 € 7,223,475 CJ 58552 Mintiu Gherlii € 1,981,528 € 2,386,297 € 2,776,095 CJ 58623 Mociu € 2,772,320 € 3,338,625 € 3,883,985 CJ 58721 Moldovenesti € 1,930,865 € 2,325,285 € 2,705,117 193 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CJ 60169 Negreni € 1,551,886 € 1,868,891 € 2,174,172 CJ 58794 Palatca € 1,042,389 € 1,255,319 € 1,460,373 CJ 58856 Panticeu € 1,318,062 € 1,587,304 € 1,846,588 CJ 58918 Petrestii de Jos € 1,458,731 € 1,756,707 € 2,043,663 CJ 58990 Ploscos € 674,481 € 812,258 € 944,939 CJ 59041 Poieni € 2,658,222 € 3,201,220 € 3,724,135 CJ 59130 Recea-Cristur € 1,111,420 € 1,338,451 € 1,557,085 CJ 59238 Risca € 1,522,374 € 1,833,351 € 2,132,827 CJ 59283 Sacuieu € 791,128 € 952,732 € 1,108,360 CJ 55311 Sandulesti € 1,129,669 € 1,360,428 € 1,582,652 CJ 59327 Savadisla € 2,211,545 € 2,663,299 € 3,098,346 CJ 59416 Sic € 1,757,504 € 2,116,511 € 2,462,241 CJ 59434 Sincraiu € 1,188,010 € 1,430,686 € 1,664,387 CJ 59498 Sinmartin € 975,205 € 1,174,411 € 1,366,250 CJ 59586 Sinpaul € 1,581,656 € 1,904,743 € 2,215,880 CJ 59657 Suatu € 1,197,897 € 1,442,593 € 1,678,239 CJ 59826 Taga € 1,887,086 € 2,272,563 € 2,643,784 CJ 59693 Tritenii de Jos € 2,753,658 € 3,316,150 € 3,857,839 CJ 59764 Tureni € 2,064,178 € 2,485,829 € 2,891,886 CJ 59880 Unguras € 1,615,682 € 1,945,719 € 2,263,550 CJ 59942 Vad € 2,063,854 € 2,485,439 € 2,891,433 CJ 60026 Valea Ierii € 1,275,647 € 1,536,224 € 1,787,164 CJ 60062 Viisoara € 2,638,177 € 3,177,080 € 3,696,052 CJ 60099 Vultureni € 1,421,443 € 1,711,802 € 1,991,423 CT 60419 Constanta € 274,038,618 € 330,016,749 € 383,924,567 CT 60482 Mangalia € 33,750,642 € 40,644,918 € 47,284,213 CT 60847 Medgidia € 23,941,662 € 28,832,248 € 33,541,959 CT 61069 Baneasa € 2,706,813 € 3,259,736 € 3,792,210 CT 60776 Cernavodă € 20,842,342 € 25,099,827 € 29,199,852 CT 60455 Eforie € 16,883,429 € 20,332,224 € 23,653,467 CT 60801 Hârşova € 8,515,999 € 10,255,570 € 1 1,930,805 CT 0 Murfatlar € 6,012,785 € 7,241,022 € 8,423,834 CT 60507 Năvodari € 53,970,039 € 64,994,551 € 75,611,328 CT 62397 Negruvoda € 3,538,706 € 4,261,561 € 4,957,681 CT 60687 Ovidiu € 9,945,431 € 11,976,994 € 13,933,421 CT 60534 Techirghiol € 4 ,674,042 € 5,628,814 € 6,548,273 194 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CT 60598 23 August € 3,986,900 € 4,801,308 € 5,585,596 CT 60883 Adamclisi € 1,570,445 € 1,891,242 € 2,200,174 CT 60570 Agigea € 8,619,746 € 10,380,510 € 12,076,153 CT 60945 Albeşti € 2,167,829 € 2,610,654 € 3,037,101 CT 61005 Aliman € 1,323,265 € 1,593,569 € 1,853,877 CT 63198 Amzacea € 2,754,896 € 3,317,641 € 3,859,573 CT 63294 Bărăganu € 2,742,951 € 3,303,257 € 3,842,840 CT 61121 Castelu € 2,793,963 € 3,364,689 € 3,914,307 CT 61167 Cerchezu € 1,838,076 € 2,213,54 2 € 2,575,121 CT 61210 Chirnogeni € 3,049,415 € 3,672,322 € 4,272,191 CT 61256 Ciobanu € 1,865,296 € 2,246,321 € 2,613,255 CT 61283 Ciocârlia € 2,396,963 € 2,886,593 € 3,358,114 CT 61318 Cobadin € 5,430,178 € 6,539,406 € 7,607,610 CT 61372 Cogealac € 3,259,371 € 3,925,166 € 4,566,337 CT 61452 Comana € 1,733,337 € 2,087,407 € 2,428,382 CT 61513 Corbu € 5,537,380 € 6,668,506 € 7,757,798 CT 63286 Costineşti € 3,827,360 € 4,609,178 € 5,362,082 CT 61559 Crucea € 4,848,932 € 5,839,427 € 6,793,291 CT 61620 Cumpăna € 7,286,930 € 8,775,438 € 10,208,894 CT 63300 Cuza Voda € 1,771,718 € 2,133,628 € 2,482,154 CT 61675 Deleni € 1,458,702 € 1,756,673 € 2,043,623 CT 61737 Dobromir € 2,137,066 € 2,573,607 € 2,994,002 CT 63161 Dumbrăveni € 349,297 € 420,649 € 4 89,361 CT 63334 Fantanele € 2,899,749 € 3,492,083 € 4,062,510 CT 61808 Gârliciu € 1,341,834 € 1,615,932 € 1,879,892 CT 61826 Ghindăresţi € 1,020,504 € 1,228,964 € 1,429,713 CT 63326 Gradina € 1,260,847 € 1,518,401 € 1,766,430 CT 63278 Horia € 710,819 € 856,019 € 995,849 CT 61871 Independenţa € 2,060,290 € 2,481,147 € 2,886,439 CT 61951 Ion Corvin € 1,299,166 € 1,564,548 € 1,820,115 CT 62020 Istria € 1,514,292 € 1,823,618 € 2,121,504 CT 60632 Limanu € 5,545,206 € 6,677,930 € 7,768,761 CT 62057 Lipniţa € 4,835,300 € 5,823,012 € 6,774,193 CT 63152 Lumina € 5,685,410 € 6,846,775 € 7,965,187 CT 62253 M Viteazu € 2,503,959 € 3,015,445 € 3,508,014 CT 62280 M Vodă € 2,486,082 € 2,993,916 € 3,482,968 195 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CT 62191 M. Kogălniceanu € 7,328,426 € 8,825,410 € 10 ,267,030 CT 62137 Mereni € 1,802,324 € 2,170,486 € 2,525,033 CT 62440 N Bălcescu € 3,568,523 € 4,297,469 € 4,999,455 CT 62486 Oltina € 1,168,641 € 1,407,360 € 1,637,251 CT 62538 Ostrov € 2,551,533 € 3,072,737 € 3,574,664 CT 62609 Pantelimon € 1,782,65 1 € 2,146,794 € 2,497,470 CT 62672 Pecineaga € 2,752,399 € 3,314,634 € 3,856,076 CT 62707 Peştera € 3,925,215 € 4,727,022 € 5,499,175 CT 62761 Poarta Albă € 3,315,809 € 3,993,132 € 4,645,405 CT 62798 Rasova € 1,597,619 € 1,923,966 € 2,238,243 CT 63318 Saligny € 2,017,047 € 2,429,071 € 2,825,857 CT 62823 Saraiu € 1,726,148 € 2,078,750 € 2,418,311 CT 62878 Săcele € 1,542,291 € 1,857,337 € 2,160,730 CT 62903 Seimeni € 1,140,723 € 1,373,740 € 1,598,138 CT 62949 Siliştea € 1,914,671 € 2,305,783 € 2,682, 430 CT 62985 Târguşor € 1,111,302 € 1,338,309 € 1,556,920 CT 63045 Topalu € 1,959,404 € 2,359,654 € 2,745,100 CT 63072 Topraisar € 4,000,782 € 4,818,026 € 5,605,044 CT 63189 Tortomanu € 1,618,210 € 1,948,764 € 2,267,092 CT 60721 Tuzla € 4,402,511 € 5,301,816 € 6,167,860 CT 63125 Valu lui Traian € 7,981,037 € 9,611,331 € 11,181,330 CT 63170 Vulturu € 1,284,681 € 1,547,104 € 1,799,821 CV 63394 Sf.Gheorghe € 43,239,881 € 52,072,533 € 60,578,515 CV 63740 Tg.Secuiesc € 12,393,516 € 14,925,151 € 17,363,1 56 CV 63447 Baraolt € 3,609,768 € 4,347,138 € 5,057,238 CV 63526 Covasna € 6,845,777 € 8,244,171 € 9,590,846 CV 63580 Int.Buzaului € 3,310,669 € 3,986,943 € 4,638,205 CV 63777 Aita Mare € 843,093 € 1,015,312 € 1,181,162 CV 65113 Arcus € 1,018,916 € 1,227,050 € 1,427,488 CV 63633 Barcani € 2,215,759 € 2,668,374 € 3,104,250 CV 63802 Batani € 1,851,817 € 2,230,089 € 2,594,372 CV 63866 Belin € 873,379 € 1,051,785 € 1,223,592 CV 65121 Bixad € 787,370 € 948,207 € 1,103,096 CV 63893 Bodoc € 1,273,162 € 1 ,533,232 € 1,783,683 CV 63937 Borosneu € 1,053,738 € 1,268,986 € 1,476,273 CV 64041 Bradut € 1,921,817 € 2,314,389 € 2,692,441 196 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario CV 64005 Brates € 612,827 € 738,010 € 858,563 CV 64096 Bretcu € 1,691,781 € 2,037,363 € 2,370,163 CV 64130 Catalina € 1,184, 495 € 1,426,453 € 1,659,462 CV 64194 Cernat € 1,731,759 € 2,085,507 € 2,426,172 CV 64238 Chichis € 1,000,460 € 1,204,825 € 1,401,632 CV 63553 Comandau € 556,692 € 670,408 € 779,918 CV 65147 Dalnic € 573,348 € 690,466 € 803,253 CV 64265 Dobarlau € 795, 894 € 958,473 € 1,115,038 CV 65154 Estelnic € 901,485 € 1,085,632 € 1,262,969 CV 64318 Ghelinta € 1,541,545 € 1,856,438 € 2,159,684 CV 64345 Ghidfalau € 1,264,246 € 1,522,495 € 1,771,193 CV 64390 Haghig € 1,073,646 € 1,292,961 € 1,504,164 CV 64425 Ilieni € 1,087,310 € 1,309,416 € 1,523,307 CV 64461 Lemnia € 770,122 € 927,436 € 1,078,931 CV 64504 Malnas € 883,960 € 1,064,528 € 1,238,417 CV 65105 Mereni € 682,535 € 821,958 € 956,223 CV 65139 Micfalau € 671,280 € 808,403 € 940,455 CV 64568 Moacsa € 5 14,317 € 619,377 € 720,551 CV 64602 Ojdula € 1,195,877 € 1,440,160 € 1,675,408 CV 64639 Ozun € 2,098,314 € 2,526,938 € 2,939,710 CV 64719 Poian € 821,039 € 988,754 € 1,150,265 CV 64773 Reci € 1,158,901 € 1,395,631 € 1,623,605 CV 64826 Sanzieni € 1,758 ,163 € 2,117,304 € 2,463,163 CV 63688 Sita Buzaului € 1,757,779 € 2,116,842 € 2,462,626 CV 64871 Turia € 1,878,150 € 2,261,801 € 2,631,263 CV 64942 Valcele € 1,396,810 € 1,682,138 € 1,956,913 CV 64906 Valea Crisului € 914,196 € 1,100,939 € 1,280,776 CV 65099 Valea Mare € 404,827 € 487,522 € 567,158 CV 64997 Varghis € 624,802 € 752,431 € 875,340 CV 65048 Zabala € 1,485,737 € 1,789,230 € 2,081,499 CV 65011 Zagon € 3,157,344 € 3,802,297 € 4,423,398 DB 65841 Moreni € 8,702,585 € 10,480,271 € 12,192,209 DB 65342 Targoviste € 75,963,561 € 91,480,710 € 106,423,968 DB 65609 Fieni € 4,912,811 € 5,916,356 € 6,882,785 DB 65681 Gaesti € 10,018,978 € 12,065,565 € 14,036,459 DB 65921 Pucioasa € 6,504,459 € 7,833,131 € 9,112,663 197 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario DB 68627 Racari € 3,862,184 € 4,651,115 € 5,410,869 DB 66081 Titu € 12,757,539 € 15,363,534 € 17,873,148 DB 65379 Aninoasa € 3,832,693 € 4,615,600 € 5,369,553 DB 66198 Baleni € 2,614,711 € 3,148,820 € 3,663,176 DB 66223 Barbuletu € 648,178 € 780,582 € 908,089 DB 66330 Bezdead € 1,286,739 € 1,549,582 € 1,802,704 DB 66401 Bilciuresti € 638,233 € 768,605 € 894,156 DB 66009 Branesti € 1,028,299 € 1,238,351 € 1,440,634 DB 66152 Braniste € 940,989 € 1,133,205 € 1,318,313 DB 101341 Brezoaele € 1,193,490 € 1,437,285 € 1,672,064 DB 66438 Buciumeni € 1,119,101 € 1,347,700 € 1,567,846 DB 66474 Bucsani € 2,689,561 € 3,238,960 € 3,768,040 DB 101564 Butimanu € 1,089,816 € 1,312,434 € 1,526,818 DB 66526 Candesti € 923,463 € 1,112,100 € 1,293,760 DB 101840 Ciocanesti € 1,531,717 € 1,844,60 2 € 2,145,916 DB 66580 Cobia € 835,295 € 1,005,922 € 1,170,238 DB 66697 Cojasca € 1,518,455 € 1,828,631 € 2,127,336 DB 66731 Comisani € 1,741,784 € 2,097,580 € 2,440,217 DB 66768 Contesti € 4,101,798 € 4,939,677 € 5,746,566 DB 66857 Corbii Mari € 2,18 4,795 € 2,631,085 € 3,060,870 DB 66955 Cornatelu € 860,886 € 1,036,740 € 1,206,090 DB 67014 Cornesti € 2,189,601 € 2,636,873 € 3,067,603 DB 67121 Costesti Vale € 891,748 € 1,073,906 € 1,249,328 DB 67167 Cranguri € 942,397 € 1,134,901 € 1,320,286 DB 102286 Crevedia € 3,678,176 € 4,429,520 € 5,153,077 DB 67256 Darmanesti € 1,436,930 € 1,730,453 € 2,013,120 DB 67292 Dobra € 1,800,282 € 2,168,027 € 2,522,171 DB 65413 Doicesti € 2,387,816 € 2,875,577 € 3,345,299 DB 67327 Dragodana € 1,665,439 € 2,005,64 0 € 2,333,259 DB 67407 Dragomiresti € 2,280,213 € 2,745,994 € 3,194,549 DB 67470 Finta € 1,161,384 € 1,398,621 € 1,627,084 DB 67522 Glodeni € 1,085,796 € 1,307,593 € 1,521,186 DB 65707 Gura Foii € 1,115,578 € 1,343,459 € 1,562,911 DB 67595 Gura Ocnitei € 2,918,942 € 3,515,197 € 4,089,400 DB 67648 Gura Sutii € 1,566,508 € 1,886,500 € 2,194,658 DB 67675 Hulubesti € 1,757,943 € 2,117,039 € 2,462,855 198 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario DB 67737 I. L. Caragiale € 1,685,109 € 2,029,328 € 2,360,816 DB 65869 Iedera € 1,797,182 € 2,164,294 € 2,517,829 DB 67773 Lucieni € 896,629 € 1,079,784 € 1,256,165 DB 67835 Ludesti € 999,730 € 1,203,945 € 1,400,608 DB 67906 Lunguletu € 1,343,877 € 1,618,392 € 1,882,754 DB 67942 Malu cu Flori € 1,067,407 € 1,285,447 € 1,495,423 DB 68002 Manesti € 1,240, 298 € 1,493,655 € 1,737,642 DB 68048 Matasaru € 1,242,981 € 1,496,886 € 1,741,401 DB 68128 Mogosani € 1,109,083 € 1,335,636 € 1,553,810 DB 68182 Moroieni € 2,028,737 € 2,443,150 € 2,842,235 DB 68253 Morteni € 810,604 € 976,187 € 1,135,646 DB 65645 Motaieni € 651,447 € 784,519 € 912,669 DB 104387 Niculesti € 1,565,091 € 1,884,793 € 2,192,672 DB 68280 Nucet € 1,063,221 € 1,280,406 € 1,489,558 DB 68324 Ocnita € 1,192,193 € 1,435,724 € 1,670,247 DB 68342 Odobesti € 1,321,578 € 1,591,539 € 1,851,514 DB 179935 Persinari € 789,551 € 950,833 € 1,106,151 DB 65752 Petresti € 2,092,032 € 2,519,374 € 2,930,910 DB 179908 Pietrari € 1,283,166 € 1,545,279 € 1,797,699 DB 68404 Pietrosita € 1,033,779 € 1,244,950 € 1,448,311 DB 68431 Poiana € 991,611 € 1,194,168 € 1,389,234 DB 68468 Potlogi € 2,219,083 € 2,672,377 € 3,108,907 DB 68529 Produlesti € 872,047 € 1,050,181 € 1,221,727 DB 68565 Pucheni € 518,125 € 623,963 € 725,887 DB 179891 Raciu € 927,382 € 1,116,819 € 1,299,250 DB 179926 Rascaeti € 808,088 € 973 ,157 € 1,132,120 DB 179917 Rau Alb € 932,702 € 1,123,226 € 1,306,703 DB 65431 Razvad € 2,452,954 € 2,954,021 € 3,436,557 DB 68716 Runcu € 1,361,792 € 1,639,967 € 1,907,853 DB 68789 Salcioara € 1,193,390 € 1,437,165 € 1,671,924 DB 68887 Selaru € 920,99 2 € 1,109,124 € 1,290,298 DB 105142 Slobozia Moara € 936,378 € 1,127,652 € 1,311,853 DB 65477 Sotanga € 2,188,919 € 2,636,051 € 3,066,647 DB 105534 Tartasesti € 2,236,931 € 2,693,871 € 3,133,912 DB 68921 Tatarani € 1,179,136 € 1,419,999 € 1,651,954 DB 68976 Uliesti € 1,169,812 € 1,408,770 € 1,638,891 199 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario DB 65501 Ulmi € 1,617,158 € 1,947,497 € 2,265,618 DB 69250 Vacaresti € 1,416,063 € 1,705,324 € 1,983,886 DB 69063 Valea Lunga € 1,275,934 € 1,536,570 € 1,787,567 DB 69170 Valea Mare € 1,326,014 € 1,596 ,880 € 1,857,729 DB 69303 Valeni Dambovita € 639,400 € 770,011 € 895,791 DB 69447 Varfuri € 603,622 € 726,924 € 845,666 DB 69330 Visina € 1,068,484 € 1,286,744 € 1,496,932 DB 69394 Visinesti € 872,084 € 1,050,226 € 1,221,779 DB 179711 Vladeni € 671,53 4 € 808,708 € 940,810 DB 69526 Voinesti € 2,269,003 € 2,732,495 € 3,178,844 DB 69615 Vulcana Bai € 1,005,871 € 1,211,341 € 1,409,212 DB 179640 Vulcana Pandele € 1,162,095 € 1,399,478 € 1,628,080 DJ 70316 Bailesti € 8,127,525 € 9,787,742 € 11,386,557 DJ 70352 Calafat € 10,973,308 € 13,214,836 € 15,373,463 DJ 69900 Craiova € 251,579,117 € 302,969,424 € 352,459,095 DJ 70879 Bechet € 2,436,732 € 2,934,486 € 3,413,831 DJ 72007 Dabuleni € 4,286,877 € 5,162,562 € 6,005,859 DJ 70414 Filiasi € 7,339,628 € 8 ,838,901 € 10,282,724 DJ 70502 Segarcea € 5,545,475 € 6,678,254 € 7,769,139 DJ 70520 Afumati € 1,742,974 € 2,099,012 € 2,441,884 DJ 70566 Almaj € 1,032,734 € 1,243,692 € 1,446,847 DJ 70637 Amarastii de Jos € 1,724,837 € 2,077,171 € 2,416,474 DJ 70673 Amarastii de Sus € 922,126 € 1,110,489 € 1,291,886 DJ 70726 Apele Vii € 804,110 € 968,367 € 1,126,548 DJ 70744 Argetoaia € 1,413,898 € 1,702,716 € 1,980,853 DJ 70940 Birca € 1,735,287 € 2,089,756 € 2,431,115 DJ 70897 Bistret € 1,656,369 € 1,994,717 € 2 ,320,552 DJ 70968 Botosesti-Paia € 677,434 € 815,814 € 949,076 DJ 70986 Brabova € 667,144 € 803,422 € 934,659 DJ 71055 Bradesti € 2,190,955 € 2,638,503 € 3,069,499 DJ 71126 Bralostita € 1,071,493 € 1,290,368 € 1,501,148 DJ 71199 Bratovoiesti € 1,073,9 43 € 1,293,318 € 1,504,580 DJ 71260 Breasta € 1,420,938 € 1,711,194 € 1,990,715 DJ 69964 Bucovat € 1,545,634 € 1,861,362 € 2,165,413 DJ 71340 Bulzesti € 748,080 € 900,891 € 1,048,051 DJ 71607 Calarasi € 1,737,288 € 2,092,166 € 2,433,919 200 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario DJ 71457 Calopar € 1,617,338 € 1,947,713 € 2,265,869 DJ 71518 Caraula € 779,415 € 938,626 € 1,091,950 DJ 74859 Carcea € 3,917,901 € 4,718,214 € 5,488,928 DJ 74867 Carna € 469,281 € 565,142 € 657,457 DJ 71536 Carpen € 822,713 € 990,770 € 1,152,610 DJ 71572 Castranova € 1,073,755 € 1,293,092 € 1,504,316 DJ 74842 Catane € 849,961 € 1,023,584 € 1,190,785 DJ 71634 Celaru € 1,784,983 € 2,149,603 € 2,500,738 DJ 71698 Cerat € 1,053,112 € 1,268,233 € 1,475,397 DJ 71723 Cernatesti € 672,346 € 809,686 € 941,948 DJ 71787 Cetate € 1,903,637 € 2,292,494 € 2,666,970 DJ 71812 Cioroiasi € 633,927 € 763,420 € 888,123 DJ 71858 Ciupercenii Noi € 2,066,648 € 2,488,804 € 2,895,347 DJ 71885 Cosoveni € 1,077,561 € 1,297,676 € 1,509,649 DJ 71910 Cotofenii din Dos € 823,928 € 992,233 € 1,154,313 DJ 74875 Cotofenii din Fata € 808,455 € 973,599 € 1,132,635 DJ 71956 Daneti € 1,858,292 € 2,237,887 € 2,603,443 DJ 72034 Desa € 1,400,618 € 1,686,724 € 1,962,248 DJ 72052 Diosti € 951,691 € 1,146,094 € 1,333,307 DJ 72098 Dobresti € 665,44 1 € 801,371 € 932,274 DJ 74883 Dobrotesti € 645,188 € 776,981 € 903,900 DJ 72150 Dragotesti € 1,124,651 € 1,354,385 € 1,575,622 DJ 72221 Dranic € 1,357,188 € 1,634,422 € 1,901,402 DJ 72276 Farcas € 861,131 € 1,037,035 € 1,206,434 DJ 72383 Galicea Mare € 1,442,968 € 1,737,725 € 2,021,580 DJ 74891 Galiciuica € 979,444 € 1,179,516 € 1,372,189 DJ 72409 Ghercesti € 1,030,816 € 1,241,382 € 1,444,160 DJ 74907 Ghidici € 1,682,690 € 2,026,415 € 2,357,427 DJ 74915 Ghindeni € 582,776 € 701,820 € 816,462 DJ 72463 Gighera € 1,075,361 € 1,295,026 € 1,506,567 DJ 72579 Gingiova € 1,258,707 € 1,515,825 € 1,763,433 DJ 72506 Giubega € 1,038,140 € 1,250,201 € 1,454,420 DJ 72533 Giurgita € 1,538,644 € 1,852,945 € 2,155,621 DJ 72604 Gogosu € 354,561 € 426,988 € 496, 735 DJ 72640 Goicea € 875,467 € 1,054,300 € 1,226,518 DJ 72677 Goiesti € 998,203 € 1,202,107 € 1,398,469 201 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario DJ 72819 Grecesti € 539,575 € 649,795 € 755,938 DJ 74923 Intorsura € 762,830 € 918,654 € 1,068,715 DJ 70094 Isalnita € 5,500,062 € 6,623,565 € 7,7 05,516 DJ 72882 Izvoare € 592,598 € 713,649 € 830,222 DJ 72926 Leu € 1,873,369 € 2,256,044 € 2,624,566 DJ 72953 Lipovu € 841,772 € 1,013,722 € 1,179,312 DJ 72980 Macesu de Jos € 447,871 € 539,358 € 627,461 DJ 73013 Macesu de Sus € 745,646 € 897,960 € 1,044,640 DJ 73031 Maglavit € 1,608,955 € 1,937,618 € 2,254,126 DJ 73068 Malu Mare € 3,928,673 € 4,731,187 € 5,504,021 DJ 73102 Melinesti € 1,792,993 € 2,159,249 € 2,511,960 DJ 73317 Mirsani € 2,949,771 € 3,552,323 € 4,132,591 DJ 73246 Mischii € 1,130 ,392 € 1,361,298 € 1,583,664 DJ 73335 Motatei € 2,348,767 € 2,828,552 € 3,290,592 DJ 73371 Murgasi € 1,025,738 € 1,235,266 € 1,437,046 DJ 73460 Negoi € 673,083 € 810,574 € 942,980 DJ 73503 Orodel € 1,128,702 € 1,359,263 € 1,581,296 DJ 73567 Ostroveni € 1,727,362 € 2,080,212 € 2,420,012 DJ 73594 Perisor € 1,462,007 € 1,760,652 € 2,048,252 DJ 73629 Pielesti € 4,028,651 € 4,851,587 € 5,644,087 DJ 73665 Piscu Vechi € 986,564 € 1,188,090 € 1,382,163 DJ 73709 Plenita € 2,165,098 € 2,607,365 € 3,033,275 DJ 74931 Plesoi € 428,989 € 516,619 € 601,008 DJ 70110 Podari € 3,332,166 € 4,012,831 € 4,668,321 DJ 73736 Poiana Mare € 3,990,814 € 4,806,021 € 5,591,079 DJ 73772 Predesti € 778,882 € 937,985 € 1,091,203 DJ 73852 Radovan € 814,616 € 981,019 € 1,141,26 7 DJ 73905 Rast € 1,218,450 € 1,467,344 € 1,707,033 DJ 73923 Robanesti € 687,759 € 828,249 € 963,542 DJ 74949 Rojiste € 654,780 € 788,533 € 917,338 DJ 73996 Sadova € 1,846,890 € 2,224,155 € 2,587,468 DJ 74028 Salcuta € 852,761 € 1,026,955 € 1,194,706 DJ 74073 Scaiesti € 743,364 € 895,212 € 1,041,444 DJ 74108 Seaca de Cimp € 787,257 € 948,070 € 1,102,936 DJ 74135 Seaca de Padure € 637,592 € 767,833 € 893,258 DJ 74171 Secu € 365,679 € 440,376 € 512,311 202 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario DJ 74224 Silistea Crucii € 656,659 € 790,795 € 919,970 DJ 70174 Simnicu de Sus € 1,873,067 € 2,255,680 € 2,624,142 DJ 74242 Sopot € 890,827 € 1,072,797 € 1,248,037 DJ 74956 Talpas € 476,672 € 574,042 € 667,811 DJ 74322 Teasc € 1,442,424 € 1,737,069 € 2,020,817 DJ 74359 Terpezita € 909,074 € 1,094, 772 € 1,273,602 DJ 74411 Teslui € 731,921 € 881,431 € 1,025,411 DJ 74509 Tuglui € 959,730 € 1,155,775 € 1,344,569 DJ 74536 Unirea € 1,723,520 € 2,075,585 € 2,414,629 DJ 74554 Urzicuta € 1,076,642 € 1,296,569 € 1,508,362 DJ 74581 Valea Stanciului € 1,6 43,727 € 1,979,492 € 2,302,840 DJ 74732 Vartop € 562,314 € 677,179 € 787,795 DJ 74750 Varvoru De Jos € 1,142,350 € 1,375,699 € 1,600,418 DJ 74616 Vela € 765,079 € 921,363 € 1,071,866 DJ 74705 Verbita € 666,650 € 802,827 € 933,968 GL 75098 Galati € 249 ,745,966 € 300,761,813 € 349,890,874 GL 75203 Tecuci € 21,234,694 € 25,572,325 € 29,749,532 GL 75338 Beresti € 1,440,600 € 1,734,873 € 2,018,262 GL 75472 Targu Bujor € 3,900,047 € 4,696,714 € 5,463,916 GL 75542 Balabanesti € 1,105,203 € 1,330,964 € 1,5 48,376 GL 75613 Balasesti € 2,016,919 € 2,428,917 € 2,825,677 GL 75668 Baleni € 1,923,797 € 2,316,773 € 2,695,215 GL 75686 Baneasa € 863,542 € 1,039,939 € 1,209,811 GL 75515 Barcea € 1,426,206 € 1,717,538 € 1,998,096 GL 75356 Beresti-Meria € 1,467,485 € 1,767,249 € 2,055,927 GL 75766 Brahasesti € 1,969,881 € 2,372,271 € 2,759,778 GL 75711 Branistea € 1,961,131 € 2,361,733 € 2,747,519 GL 75819 Buciumeni € 965,452 € 1,162,666 € 1,352,586 GL 75864 Cavadinesti € 1,132,403 € 1,363,720 € 1,586,482 GL 75917 Certesti € 1,222,135 € 1,471,782 € 1,712,195 GL 76004 Corni € 1,116,481 € 1,344,546 € 1,564,176 GL 75953 Corod € 2,324,491 € 2,799,317 € 3,256,582 GL 76040 Cosmesti € 2,246,642 € 2,705,565 € 3,147,516 GL 76111 Costache Negri € 892,937 € 1,075,339 € 1,250,994 GL 76139 Cuca € 995,824 € 1,199,242 € 1,395,137 GL 76157 Cudalbi € 2,619,838 € 3,154,995 € 3,670,359 203 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario GL 77595 Cuza Voda € 1,458,792 € 1,756,781 € 2,043,748 GL 75221 Draganesti € 2,053,350 € 2,472,790 € 2,876,717 GL 76175 Draguseni € 1,462,8 66 € 1,761,686 € 2,049,456 GL 76255 Firtanesti € 1,932,862 € 2,327,690 € 2,707,915 GL 76282 Fotesti € 1,081,164 € 1,302,015 € 1,514,697 GL 76317 Frumusita € 1,951,193 € 2,349,765 € 2,733,596 GL 76353 Fundeni € 1,452,038 € 1,748,648 € 2,034,287 GL 76406 Ghidigeni € 2,326,356 € 2,801,563 € 3,259,195 GL 76497 Gohor € 939,095 € 1,130,925 € 1,315,661 GL 76558 Grivita € 1,502,570 € 1,809,502 € 2,105,082 GL 76585 Independenta € 1,781,528 € 2,145,443 € 2,495,898 GL 76601 Ivesti € 3,500,349 € 4,215,369 € 4,903,944 GL 76638 Jorasti € 906,294 € 1,091,423 € 1,269,706 GL 76674 Liesti € 3,715,319 € 4,474,251 € 5,205,114 GL 76718 Mastacani € 1,877,679 € 2,261,234 € 2,630,604 GL 76692 Matca € 4,206,140 € 5,065,332 € 5,892,748 GL 76745 Movileni € 749,924 € 903, 111 € 1,050,633 GL 75258 Munteni € 2,236,032 € 2,692,788 € 3,132,652 GL 76763 Namoloasa € 1,037,498 € 1,249,429 € 1,453,521 GL 77579 Negrilesti € 1,038,446 € 1,250,570 € 1,454,849 GL 76807 Nicoresti € 1,487,688 € 1,791,580 € 2,084,232 GL 76932 Oancea € 1,744,945 € 2,101,387 € 2,444,646 GL 76969 Pechea € 2,838,572 € 3,418,409 € 3,976,802 GL 76996 Piscu € 1,957,570 € 2,357,444 € 2,742,530 GL 77587 Poiana € 1,186,453 € 1,428,811 € 1,662,205 GL 77028 Priponesti € 944,652 € 1,137,617 € 1,323,445 GL 77561 Radesti € 983,537 € 1,184,445 € 1,377,923 GL 77082 Rediu € 885,006 € 1,065,787 € 1,239,882 GL 77153 Schela € 2,561,079 € 3,084,233 € 3,588,038 GL 77126 Scinteesti € 1,480,458 € 1,782,872 € 2,074,102 GL 75114 Sendreni € 2,661,281 € 3,204,904 € 3,728, 421 GL 77180 Slobozia-Conachi € 2,283,414 € 2,749,849 € 3,199,033 GL 77224 Smirdan € 1,625,547 € 1,957,599 € 2,277,370 GL 77260 Smulti € 994,895 € 1,198,123 € 1,393,835 GL 77288 Suceveni € 776,731 € 935,394 € 1,088,190 GL 77601 Suhurlui € 699,757 € 84 2,697 € 980,350 204 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario GL 77377 Tepu € 1,938,678 € 2,334,693 € 2,716,062 GL 77313 Tudor-Vladimirescu € 1,799,911 € 2,167,580 € 2,521,652 GL 77331 Tulucesti € 3,505,452 € 4,221,515 € 4,911,094 GL 77402 Umbraresti € 2,484,375 € 2,991,860 € 3,480,577 GL 77475 Valea-Marului € 1,596,875 € 1,923,070 € 2,237,201 GL 75150 Vinatori € 3,307,318 € 3,982,908 € 4,633,510 GL 77509 Virlezi € 1,154,316 € 1,390,109 € 1,617,181 GL 77536 Vladesti € 1,414,185 € 1,703,062 € 1,981,255 GR 100521 Giurgiu € 38,359,856 € 46,195,66 0 € 53,741,663 GR 101190 Bolintin Vale € 5,379,694 € 6,478,609 € 7,536,881 GR 104136 Mihailesti € 5,877,522 € 7,078,129 € 8,234,333 GR 100781 Adunatii Copaceni € 4,634,300 € 5,580,953 € 6,492,595 GR 101001 Baneasa € 1,211,008 € 1,458,382 € 1,696,607 GR 101163 Bolintin Deal € 5,986,341 € 7,209,176 € 8,386,786 GR 101378 Bucsani € 1,270,321 € 1,529,810 € 1,779,703 GR 101519 Bulbucata € 530,145 € 638,438 € 742,726 GR 101617 Buturugeni € 1,118,194 € 1,346,609 € 1,566,575 GR 101662 Calugareni € 2,204,068 € 2,654,295 € 3,087,870 GR 101984 Clejani € 1,844,225 € 2,220,946 € 2,583,735 GR 102071 Colibasi € 1,797,829 € 2,165,073 € 2,518,735 GR 102106 Comana € 3,051,535 € 3,674,875 € 4,275,161 GR 179748 Cosoba € 662,341 € 797,638 € 927,931 GR 102348 Crevedia Mare € 1,232,119 € 1,483,805 € 1,726,183 GR 102446 Daia € 1,026,181 € 1,235,799 € 1,437,666 GR 102794 Floresti Stoenesti € 2,650,630 € 3,192,076 € 3,713,498 GR 102909 Fratesti € 1,851,600 € 2,229,829 € 2,594,068 GR 103087 Gaiseni € 1,594,094 € 1,919, 721 € 2,233,305 GR 103194 Gaujani € 892,766 € 1,075,132 € 1,250,753 GR 103238 Ghimpati € 3,121,414 € 3,759,029 € 4,373,061 GR 103309 Gogosari € 937,775 € 1,129,335 € 1,313,810 GR 103372 Gostinari € 928,011 € 1,117,576 € 1,300,131 GR 103354 Gostinu € 6 96,828 € 839,169 € 976,246 GR 103407 Gradinari € 992,907 € 1,195,730 € 1,391,050 GR 103470 Greaca € 1,806,955 € 2,176,063 € 2,531,520 GR 179757 Heresti € 1,094,931 € 1,318,593 € 1,533,984 GR 103639 Hotarele € 902,981 € 1,087,434 € 1,265,065 205 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario GR 103693 Iepuresti € 525,919 € 633,349 € 736,806 GR 179766 Isvoarele € 587,420 € 707,412 € 822,967 GR 103899 Izvoarele € 2,833,290 € 3,412,048 € 3,969,402 GR 103997 Joita € 5,071,970 € 6,108,027 € 7,105,765 GR 104047 Letca Noua € 1,189,391 € 1,432,349 € 1,666,3 21 GR 179739 Malu € 933,898 € 1,124,666 € 1,308,379 GR 104225 Marsa € 688,240 € 828,828 € 964,216 GR 104118 Mihai Bravu € 1,231,710 € 1,483,313 € 1,725,610 GR 104485 Ogrezeni € 1,378,156 € 1,659,673 € 1,930,779 GR 104519 Oinacu € 862,958 € 1,039,236 € 1,208,994 GR 104680 Prundu € 4,446,548 € 5,354,849 € 6,229,557 GR 104715 Putineiu € 1,158,697 € 1,395,385 € 1,623,319 GR 104788 Rasuceni € 745,639 € 897,951 € 1,044,630 GR 104831 Roata de Jos € 3,230,866 € 3,890,838 € 4,526,401 GR 179775 Sabareni € 8 45,854 € 1,018,637 € 1,185,030 GR 104975 Schitu € 734,536 € 884,580 € 1,029,075 GR 105106 Singureni € 806,552 € 971,307 € 1,129,969 GR 100549 Slobozia € 713,180 € 858,862 € 999,156 GR 105295 Stanesti € 936,540 € 1,127,848 € 1,312,080 GR 105348 Stoenesti € 630,933 € 759,814 € 883,929 GR 154709 Toporu € 800,419 € 963,921 € 1,121,377 GR 105623 Ulmi € 1,716,203 € 2,066,773 € 2,404,378 GR 105776 Valea Dragului € 1,410,862 € 1,699,061 € 1,976,600 GR 105972 Vanatorii Mici € 1,934,902 € 2,330,146 € 2,710,7 73 GR 105874 Varasti € 2,193,381 € 2,641,425 € 3,072,898 GR 105909 Vedea € 850,833 € 1,024,634 € 1,192,007 GJ 78141 Motru € 20,308,327 € 24,456,728 € 28,451,704 GJ 77812 Tg-Jiu € 63,735,432 € 76,754,729 € 89,292,517 GJ 79308 Bumbesti-Jiu € 3,890,385 € 4,685,077 € 5,450,379 GJ 78258 Novaci € 3,372,582 € 4,061,503 € 4,724,944 GJ 82895 Rovinari € 14,299,506 € 17,220,480 € 20,033,423 GJ 78329 Tg-Carbunesti € 4,336,207 € 5,221,968 € 6,074,970 GJ 78454 Ticleni € 3,433,007 € 4,134,270 € 4,809,598 GJ 82430 Tismana € 2,717,723 € 3,272,875 € 3,807,495 GJ 82617 Turceni € 10,033,350 € 12,082,872 € 14,056,594 GJ 78472 Albeni € 1,079,327 € 1,299,802 € 1,512,123 206 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario GJ 78542 Alimpesti € 890,880 € 1,072,861 € 1,248,111 GJ 78604 Aninoasa € 1,436,339 € 1,729,741 € 2 ,012,292 GJ 78668 Arcani € 516,640 € 622,175 € 723,806 GJ 78711 Baia de Fier € 2,126,876 € 2,561,336 € 2,979,727 GJ 78748 Balanesti € 666,737 € 802,932 € 934,090 GJ 77910 Balesti € 2,728,973 € 3,286,423 € 3,823,256 GJ 78828 Barbatesti € 668,542 € 805, 106 € 936,619 GJ 78873 Bengesti-Ciocadia € 1,319,188 € 1,588,660 € 1,848,166 GJ 78926 Berlesti € 1,906,337 € 2,295,746 € 2,670,753 GJ 79004 Bilteni € 3,063,460 € 3,689,236 € 4,291,867 GJ 79077 Bolbosi € 1,136,116 € 1,368,191 € 1,591,683 GJ 79157 Borascu € 1,299,336 € 1,564,753 € 1,820,354 GJ 79237 Branesti € 925,639 € 1,114,721 € 1,296,809 GJ 79362 Bumbesti-Pitic € 1,055,172 € 1,270,712 € 1,478,282 GJ 79406 Bustuchin € 2,562,090 € 3,085,451 € 3,589,455 GJ 79497 Capreni € 1,249,601 € 1,504,858 € 1,7 50,675 GJ 79585 Catunele € 2,043,503 € 2,460,931 € 2,862,921 GJ 79736 Cilnic € 2,116,607 € 2,548,969 € 2,965,340 GJ 79656 Ciuperceni € 900,222 € 1,084,111 € 1,261,199 GJ 79834 Crasna € 2,038,198 € 2,454,543 € 2,855,489 GJ 79932 Cruset € 2,201,504 € 2,651,208 € 3,084,279 GJ 80043 Danciulesti € 713,744 € 859,541 € 999,946 GJ 80123 Danesti € 1,289,228 € 1,552,580 € 1,806,192 GJ 80249 Dragotesti € 1,460,325 € 1,758,627 € 2,045,896 GJ 78016 Dragutesti € 2,074,828 € 2,498,655 € 2,906,807 GJ 80285 Farcasesti € 3,500,495 € 4,215,544 € 4,904,148 GJ 80365 Glogova € 4,599,577 € 5,539,137 € 6,443,948 GJ 80427 Godinesti € 788,474 € 949,536 € 1,104,642 GJ 80506 Hurezani € 1,100,388 € 1,325,166 € 1,541,630 GJ 80560 Ionesti € 1,042,350 € 1,255,272 € 1,460,319 GJ 80613 Jupinesti € 775,070 € 933,394 € 1,085,863 GJ 80677 Lelesti € 746,514 € 899,005 € 1,045,856 GJ 80711 Licurici € 1,047,042 € 1,260,923 € 1,466,893 GJ 80766 Logresti € 1,284,689 € 1,547,114 € 1,799,833 GJ 80846 Matasari € 5,227,615 € 6,295,465 € 7,323,821 GJ 80908 Musetesti € 937,342 € 1,128,814 € 1,313,204 207 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario GJ 80980 Negomir € 2,027,882 € 2,442,120 € 2,841,037 GJ 81095 Pades € 1,564,451 € 1,884,022 € 2,191,775 GJ 81184 Pestisani € 1,249,229 € 1,504,410 € 1,750,153 GJ 81264 Plopsoru € 3,494,91 9 € 4,208,829 € 4,896,336 GJ 81380 Polovragi € 1,160,772 € 1,397,884 € 1,626,227 GJ 81415 Prigoria € 1,187,929 € 1,430,588 € 1,664,273 GJ 81497 Rosia de Amaradia € 1,343,855 € 1,618,366 € 1,882,724 GJ 81576 Runcu € 2,478,616 € 2,984,925 € 3,472,508 GJ 81754 Sacelu € 689,492 € 830,335 € 965,969 GJ 81656 Samarinesti € 825,217 € 993,785 € 1,156,119 GJ 81816 Saulesti € 1,077,964 € 1,298,161 € 1,510,214 GJ 81987 Schela € 765,226 € 921,539 € 1,072,072 GJ 81861 Scoarta € 1,464,544 € 1,763,708 € 2,051,808 GJ 82047 Slivilesti € 1,743,446 € 2,099,581 € 2,442,545 GJ 82136 Stanesti € 1,236,475 € 1,489,051 € 1,732,286 GJ 82243 Stejari € 1,112,659 € 1,339,942 € 1,558,820 GJ 82314 Stoina € 1,214,722 € 1,462,855 € 1,701,810 GJ 82396 Telesti € 1,716,700 € 2,067 ,372 € 2,405,075 GJ 82680 Tintareni € 1,917,423 € 2,309,097 € 2,686,285 GJ 82555 Turburea € 1,580,050 € 1,902,809 € 2,213,630 GJ 78089 Turcinesti € 888,286 € 1,069,737 € 1,244,477 GJ 82733 Urdari € 1,740,617 € 2,096,175 € 2,438,582 GJ 82779 Vagiulesti € 1,114,020 € 1,341,582 € 1,560,728 GJ 82831 Vladimir € 955,343 € 1,150,492 € 1,338,424 HR 83561 Gheorgheni € 11,959,328 € 14,402,271 € 16,754,864 HR 83320 Miercurea-Ciuc € 36,559,893 € 44,028,017 € 51,219,938 HR 83133 Odorheiu-Secuiesc € 25,817,906 € 31,091,755 € 36,170,553 HR 83632 Toplita € 7,343,509 € 8,843,575 € 10,288,162 HR 83428 Băile -Tuşnad € 1,660,066 € 1,999,170 € 2,325,732 HR 83464 Bălan € 2,206,478 € 2,657,197 € 3,091,247 HR 83491 Borsec € 3,289,660 € 3,961,642 € 4,608,772 HR 83525 Cristuru-Secuiesc € 6,055,603 € 7,292,587 € 8,483,822 HR 83749 Vlăhiţa € 2,631,901 € 3,169,522 € 3,687,260 HR 83785 Atid € 1,064,200 € 1,281,585 € 1,490,930 HR 83847 Avrămeşti € 1,118,988 € 1,347,564 € 1,567,687 HR 83936 Bilbor € 946,581 € 1,139,940 € 1,326,148 208 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario HR 83151 Bradesti € 900,572 € 1,084,533 € 1,261,690 HR 83963 Căpâlniţa € 1,324,251 € 1,594,758 € 1,855,259 HR 84102 Cârţa € 1,110,138 € 1,336,907 € 1,555,289 HR 86461 Ciceu € 1,129,279 € 1,359,958 € 1,582,106 HR 83981 Ciucsângeorgiu € 1,782,76 1 € 2,146,927 € 2,497,625 HR 84086 Ciumani € 1,683,852 € 2,027,814 € 2,359,054 HR 84148 Corbu € 539,197 € 649,340 € 755,408 HR 84175 Corund € 2,488,227 € 2,996,499 € 3,485,974 HR 86446 Cozmeni € 1,451,044 € 1,747,450 € 2,032,894 HR 84237 Dăneşti € 1,4 79,922 € 1,782,227 € 2,073,351 HR 84380 Dârjiu € 499,340 € 601,340 € 699,568 HR 84264 Dealu € 1,377,060 € 1,658,353 € 1,929,243 HR 84344 Ditrău € 2,131,037 € 2,566,346 € 2,985,555 HR 83197 Feliceni € 1,345,067 € 1,619,825 € 1,884,422 HR 84415 Frumoasa € 1,303,445 € 1,569,701 € 1,826,110 HR 84460 Gălăuţaş € 1,215,157 € 1,463,378 € 1,702,419 HR 84558 Joseni € 2,853,811 € 3,436,762 € 3,998,152 HR 84594 Lăzarea € 1,699,075 € 2,046,147 € 2,380,383 HR 86479 Leliceni € 1,770,174 € 2,131,769 € 2,479,991 HR 84629 Lueta € 1,426,327 € 1,717,684 € 1,998,266 HR 84656 Lunca de Jos € 1,583,923 € 1,907,472 € 2,219,055 HR 84754 Lunca de Sus € 1,105,753 € 1,331,626 € 1,549,145 HR 84825 Lupeni € 1,930,529 € 2,324,881 € 2,704,647 HR 86438 Mădăraş € 1,379,577 € 1,6 61,385 € 1,932,770 HR 84923 Mărtiniş € 1,091,806 € 1,314,831 € 1,529,607 HR 85056 Mereşti € 685,443 € 825,459 € 960,296 HR 85074 Mihăileni € 1,233,316 € 1,485,246 € 1,727,859 HR 85127 Mugeni € 1,252,648 € 1,508,527 € 1,754,943 HR 85243 Ocland € 591,63 1 € 712,484 € 828,868 HR 83375 Păuleni -Ciuc € 734,598 € 884,655 € 1,029,162 HR 85289 Plăieşii de Jos € 1,839,950 € 2,215,798 € 2,577,746 HR 86487 Porumbeni € 1,080,989 € 1,301,803 € 1,514,451 HR 85341 Praid € 2,609,246 € 3,142,239 € 3,655,520 HR 86495 Racu € 939,909 € 1,131,905 € 1,316,800 HR 85412 Remetea € 3,207,406 € 3,862,586 € 4,493,535 HR 86501 Satu-Mare € 1,026,861 € 1,236,619 € 1,438,619 209 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario HR 85467 Săcel € 511,583 € 616,085 € 716,722 HR 85528 Sărmaş € 1,899,919 € 2,288,017 € 2,661,762 HR 85680 Sâncrăieni € 1,429,049 € 1,720,962 € 2,002,079 HR 85760 Sândominic € 1,907,950 € 2,297,689 € 2,673,014 HR 85788 Sânmartin € 939,968 € 1,131,976 € 1,316,882 HR 85840 Sânsimion € 1,310,076 € 1,577,687 € 1,835,400 HR 86519 Sântimbru € 1,452,171 € 1,748 ,808 € 2,034,473 HR 85582 Secuieni € 959,537 € 1,155,542 € 1,344,298 HR 85626 Siculeni € 1,762,967 € 2,123,090 € 2,469,894 HR 85877 Subcetate € 1,263,222 € 1,521,262 € 1,769,758 HR 85920 Suseni € 1,934,924 € 2,330,173 € 2,710,803 HR 85984 Şimoneşti € 1,805,713 € 2,174,567 € 2,529,780 HR 86453 Tomeşti € 1,245,903 € 1,500,405 € 1,745,494 HR 86133 Tulgheş € 1,101,829 € 1,326,901 € 1,543,649 HR 86188 Tuşnad € 1,466,364 € 1,765,900 € 2,054,358 HR 86222 Ulieş € 762,938 € 918,785 € 1,068,867 HR 86311 Vărşag € 705,062 € 849,086 € 987,783 HR 86339 Voşlobeni € 1,131,822 € 1,363,021 € 1,585,669 HR 86366 Zetea € 2,007,548 € 2,417,632 € 2,812,549 HD 87291 Brad € 15,835,957 € 19,070,783 € 22,185,971 HD 86687 Deva € 70,638,757 € 85,068,204 € 98,963,987 HD 86810 Hunedoara € 54,586,701 € 65,737,178 € 76,475,263 HD 87059 Lupeni € 21,381,595 € 25,749,233 € 29,955,338 HD 87638 Orastie € 12,408,872 € 14,943,645 € 17,384,670 HD 86990 Petrosani € 22,085,694 € 26,597,160 € 30,941,772 HD 87175 Vulcan € 12,728,325 € 15,328,352 € 17,832,219 HD 87219 Aninoasa € 3,484,869 € 4,196,727 € 4,882,257 HD 87424 Calan € 7,816,993 € 9,413,777 € 10,951,506 HD 89561 Geoagiu € 3,308,462 € 3,984,285 € 4,635,113 HD 87576 Hateg € 9,343,785 € 11,252,449 € 13,090,522 HD 87077 Petrila € 11,659,580 € 14,041,294 € 16,334,921 HD 87665 Simeria € 7,187,697 € 8,655,935 € 10,069,871 HD 87139 Uricani € 4,516,966 € 5,439,651 € 6,328,211 HD 88047 Bacia € 1,376,552 € 1,657,741 € 1,928,531 HD 87745 Baia de Cris € 1,082,917 € 1,304,126 € 1,51 7,153 HD 88092 Baita € 1,915,010 € 2,306,191 € 2,682,904 210 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario HD 87843 Balsa € 536,979 € 646,669 € 752,301 HD 87246 Banita € 848,698 € 1,022,062 € 1,189,015 HD 87996 Baru Mare € 1,486,873 € 1,790,598 € 2,083,090 HD 88216 Batrana € 120,130 € 144,669 € 168,3 01 HD 88261 Beriu € 1,365,040 € 1,643,878 € 1,912,403 HD 88350 Blajeni € 926,151 € 1,115,337 € 1,297,526 HD 88449 Bosorod € 1,245,496 € 1,499,915 € 1,744,925 HD 88546 Branisca € 928,885 € 1,118,629 € 1,301,356 HD 88644 Bretea Romana € 1,824,083 € 2,19 6,690 € 2,555,517 HD 88788 Buces € 1,128,546 € 1,359,075 € 1,581,078 HD 88868 Bucuresci € 1,043,478 € 1,256,630 € 1,461,899 HD 88920 Bulzesti € 337,169 € 406,042 € 472,369 HD 89026 Bunila € 286,296 € 344,778 € 401,097 HD 89080 Burjuc € 669,032 € 805,6 95 € 937,305 HD 86749 Carjiti € 441,981 € 532,265 € 619,210 HD 89151 Cerbal € 374,601 € 451,121 € 524,811 HD 89240 Certejul de Sus € 1,803,065 € 2,171,378 € 2,526,070 HD 87362 Criscior € 2,111,687 € 2,543,043 € 2,958,446 HD 89348 Densus € 1,706,602 € 2,055,211 € 2,390,927 HD 89428 Dobra € 1,653,649 € 1,991,441 € 2,316,740 HD 91731 General Berthelot € 1,057,375 € 1,273,366 € 1,481,369 HD 86883 Ghelari € 1,117,076 € 1,345,262 € 1,565,009 HD 89687 Gurasada € 1,055,664 € 1,271,306 € 1,478,972 HD 89801 Harau € 1,111,626 € 1,338,699 € 1,557,373 HD 89856 Ilia € 2,415,877 € 2,909,371 € 3,384,613 HD 89954 Lapugiu de Sus € 874,994 € 1,053,730 € 1,225,856 HD 90066 Lelese € 469,697 € 565,643 € 658,040 HD 90119 Lunca Cernii € 653,324 € 786,779 € 915,299 HD 90208 Luncoiul de Jos € 1,160,413 € 1,397,452 € 1,625,724 HD 90262 Martinesti € 1,098,396 € 1,322,766 € 1,538,838 HD 90342 Orastioara de Sus € 1,189,491 € 1,432,469 € 1,666,461 HD 90431 Pestisu Mic € 2,045,736 € 2,463,620 € 2,866,049 HD 90538 Pui € 2,758,932 € 3,322,502 € 3,865,228 HD 90725 Rachitova € 623,656 € 751,051 € 873,735 HD 90663 Rapoltu Mare € 1,081,458 € 1,302,368 € 1,515,109 HD 90805 Ribita € 1,489,955 € 1,794,310 € 2,087,408 211 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario HD 90878 Riu De Mori € 1,927,956 € 2,321,782 € 2,701,042 HD 90994 Romos € 1,465,483 € 1,764,838 € 2,053,122 HD 91116 Salasu de Sus € 1,435,873 € 1,729,180 € 2,011,639 HD 91232 Sintamaria Orlea € 1,363,990 € 1,642,614 € 1,910,933 HD 91054 Sarmisegetusa € 955,917 € 1,151,183 € 1,339,228 HD 91330 Soimus € 4,723,71 2 € 5,688,629 € 6,617,859 HD 86936 Teliuc € 1,570,843 € 1,891,721 € 2,200,731 HD 91447 Tomesti € 442,018 € 532,310 € 619,262 HD 91535 Toplita € 472,007 € 568,424 € 661,276 HD 91624 Totesti € 1,522,736 € 1,833,786 € 2,133,333 HD 91688 Turdas € 1,348,66 0 € 1,624,152 € 1,889,455 HD 91937 Valisoara € 977,539 € 1,177,222 € 1,369,520 HD 91795 Vata de Jos € 1,920,031 € 2,312,237 € 2,689,938 HD 91982 Vetel € 4,358,231 € 5,248,491 € 6,105,826 HD 92097 Vorta € 685,873 € 825,978 € 960,900 HD 92177 Zam € 757, 840 € 912,645 € 1,061,724 IL 92701 Fetesti € 13,441,499 € 16,187,206 € 18,831,366 IL 92658 Slobozia € 36,822,078 € 44,343,759 € 51,587,256 IL 100683 Urziceni € 9,867,703 € 11,883,388 € 13,824,524 IL 92836 Amara € 4,513,208 € 5,435,126 € 6,322,947 IL 93067 Cazanesti € 1,852,188 € 2,230,536 € 2,594,891 IL 102749 Fierbinti Targ € 1,989,352 € 2,395,719 € 2,787,056 IL 92765 Tandarei € 5,198,454 € 6,260,347 € 7,282,967 IL 100754 Adancata € 834,791 € 1,005,315 € 1,169,532 IL 92783 Albesti € 817,706 € 984, 740 € 1,145,596 IL 100852 Alexeni € 732,284 € 881,868 € 1,025,920 IL 92872 Andrasesti € 740,869 € 892,207 € 1,037,948 IL 100870 Armasesti € 727,899 € 876,588 € 1,019,777 IL 100923 Axintele € 958,322 € 1,154,079 € 1,342,596 IL 92907 Balaciu € 965,776 € 1,163,056 € 1,353,040 IL 180064 Barbulesti € 1,585,913 € 1,909,869 € 2,221,844 IL 101056 Barcanesti € 1,236,560 € 1,489,153 € 1,732,404 IL 179784 Boranesti € 1,034,743 € 1,246,111 € 1,449,661 IL 92989 Bordusani € 1,948,463 € 2,346,477 € 2,729,771 IL 93021 Bucu € 1,095,468 € 1,319,240 € 1,534,737 IL 179793 Buiesti € 1,008,199 € 1,214,145 € 1,412,474 212 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario IL 100709 Ciocarlia € 718,065 € 864,744 € 1,005,999 IL 93101 Ciochina € 1,816,844 € 2,187,973 € 2,545,375 IL 93156 Ciulnita € 1,487,378 € 1,791,206 € 2 ,083,798 IL 93209 Cocora € 844,499 € 1,017,005 € 1,183,132 IL 179971 Colelia € 711,149 € 856,416 € 996,311 IL 93236 Cosambesti € 861,163 € 1,037,073 € 1,206,478 IL 102240 Cosereni € 1,335,830 € 1,608,702 € 1,871,481 IL 102641 Dragoesti € 945,945 € 1,1 39,174 € 1,325,257 IL 102703 Dridu € 1,178,210 € 1,418,884 € 1,650,657 IL 93575 Facaeni € 2,289,543 € 2,757,230 € 3,207,620 IL 103283 Garbovi € 1,151,538 € 1,386,763 € 1,613,289 IL 93600 Gheorghe Doja € 979,578 € 1,179,677 € 1,372,376 IL 93628 Gheorghe Lazar € 1,121,578 € 1,350,683 € 1,571,316 IL 93646 Giurgeni € 847,890 € 1,021,089 € 1,187,882 IL 93717 Grindu € 991,964 € 1,194,594 € 1,389,729 IL 93735 Grivita € 990,988 € 1,193,418 € 1,388,361 IL 180046 Gura Ialomitei € 1,297,165 € 1,562,138 € 1,81 7,311 IL 103862 Ion Roata € 1,494,412 € 1,799,677 € 2,093,652 IL 103960 Jilavele € 1,043,749 € 1,256,957 € 1,462,279 IL 179800 Maia € 734,883 € 884,998 € 1,029,561 IL 100736 Manasia € 1,038,281 € 1,250,372 € 1,454,619 IL 179980 Marculesti € 772,766 € 930,619 € 1,082,635 IL 93995 Mihail Kogalniceanu € 1,233,833 € 1,485,869 € 1,728,584 IL 94045 Milosesti € 1,090,018 € 1,312,677 € 1,527,101 IL 179999 Moldoveni € 628,483 € 756,863 € 880,496 IL 94081 Movila € 1,031,569 € 1,242,289 € 1,445,215 IL 104270 Movilita € 1,282,227 € 1,544,148 € 1,796,383 IL 94107 Munteni Buzau € 1,269,262 € 1,528,535 € 1,778,220 IL 179819 Ograda € 1,240,742 € 1,494,190 € 1,738,264 IL 94161 Perieti € 1,330,966 € 1,602,844 € 1,864,666 IL 180000 Platonesti € 622,593 € 749,771 € 872,245 IL 0 Radulesti € 592,228 € 713,203 € 829,704 IL 94269 Reviga € 1,428,370 € 1,720,145 € 2,001,128 IL 179828 Rosiori € 707,853 € 852,447 € 991,694 IL 94330 Salcioara € 1,382,490 € 1,664,893 € 1,936,851 IL 180019 Sarateni € 578,934 € 697,193 € 811,079 213 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario IL 94376 Saveni € 1,314,947 € 1,583,553 € 1,842,224 IL 94429 Scanteia € 1,367,557 € 1,646,910 € 1,915,930 IL 94456 Sfantul Gheorghe € 939,199 € 1,131,050 € 1,315,806 IL 105026 Sinesti € 2,154,522 € 2,594,628 € 3,018,457 IL 94492 Stelnica € 1,2 07,941 € 1,454,688 € 1,692,310 IL 94535 Suditi € 833,800 € 1,004,121 € 1,168,143 IL 179702 Traian € 864,005 € 1,040,496 € 1,210,460 IL 94688 Valea Ciorii € 1,051,324 € 1,266,079 € 1,472,891 IL 105794 Valea Macrisului € 784,463 € 944,705 € 1,099,022 IL 94795 Vladeni € 1,387,687 € 1,671,151 € 1,944,132 IS 95060 Iasi € 226,953,634 € 273,313,670 € 317,959,112 IS 95391 Pascani € 29,252,979 € 35,228,513 € 40,983,046 IS 95355 Harlau € 4,262,773 € 5,133,533 € 5,972,089 IS 98373 Podu Iloaie € 2,469,600 € 2,974,067 € 3,459,877 IS 95471 Targu Frumos € 4,897,069 € 5,897,399 € 6,860,731 IS 95612 Alex. I. Cuza € 872,738 € 1,051,013 € 1,222,694 IS 95667 Andrieseni € 1,049,538 € 1,263,928 € 1,470,389 IS 95747 Aroneanu € 1,196,644 € 1,441,083 € 1,676,482 IS 100273 Bals € 1,214,114 € 1,462,123 € 1,700,959 IS 95792 Baltati € 1,020,755 € 1,229,265 € 1,430,064 IS 95872 Belcesti € 2,017,057 € 2,429,083 € 2,825,870 IS 95088 Birnova € 1,857,754 € 2,237,239 € 2,602,689 IS 95943 Bivolari € 1,470,100 € 1,770,398 € 2,0 59,591 UNGHENI (FOST IS 96003 BOSIA) € 1,719,917 € 2,071,247 € 2,409,582 IS 96058 Braesti € 1,612,334 € 1,941,687 € 2,258,859 IS 96110 Butea € 1,500,755 € 1,807,316 € 2,102,538 IS 96147 Ceplenita € 1,032,971 € 1,243,976 € 1,447,178 IS 100362 Ciohorani € 530,885 € 639,330 € 743,763 IS 96192 Ciortesti € 1,220,256 € 1,469,519 € 1,709,563 IS 96254 Ciurea € 3,752,291 € 4,518,775 € 5,256,911 IS 96334 Coarnele Caprei € 1,515,133 € 1,824,631 € 2,122,682 IS 96370 Comarna € 985,353 € 1,186,632 € 1,380,467 IS 100282 Costesti € 744,553 € 896,643 € 1,043,109 IS 96423 Costuleni € 1,215,730 € 1,464,068 € 1,703,221 IS 96478 Cotnari € 2,670,638 € 3,216,172 € 3,741,529 214 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario IS 96593 Cozmesti € 918,670 € 1,106,327 € 1,287,044 IS 96637 Cristesti € 1,118,886 € 1,347,442 € 1,567,545 IS 96664 Cucuteni € 819,080 € 986,394 € 1,147,520 IS 96717 Dagita € 1,354,362 € 1,631,019 € 1,897,444 IS 96815 Deleni € 2,746,613 € 3,307,667 € 3,847,970 IS 96888 Dobrovat € 672,536 € 809,916 € 942,215 IS 96904 Dolhesti € 720,624 € 867,82 6 € 1,009,585 IS 100308 Draguseni € 476,485 € 573,816 € 667,549 IS 96940 Dumesti € 1,614,573 € 1,944,383 € 2,261,996 IS 97009 Erbiceni € 1,572,729 € 1,893,992 € 2,203,374 IS 100317 Fantanele € 656,660 € 790,797 € 919,972 IS 97063 Focuri € 841,724 € 1,013,663 € 1,179,244 IS 97090 Golaesti € 1,537,567 € 1,851,647 € 2,154,111 IS 97189 Gorban € 873,755 € 1,052,238 € 1,224,120 IS 97241 Grajduri € 742,701 € 894,414 € 1,040,515 IS 97321 Gropnita € 964,362 € 1,161,353 € 1,351,059 IS 97394 Grozesti € 604,6 61 € 728,175 € 847,122 IS 97438 Halaucesti € 1,520,536 € 1,831,138 € 2,130,251 IS 100326 Harmanesti € 534,825 € 644,074 € 749,282 IS 97465 Helesteni € 867,519 € 1,044,728 € 1,215,383 IS 95159 Holboca € 2,630,430 € 3,167,750 € 3,685,198 IS 97517 Horlesti € 1,411,624 € 1,699,978 € 1,977,668 IS 95499 Ion Neculce € 2,309,335 € 2,781,065 € 3,235,349 IS 97553 Ipatele € 885,498 € 1,066,380 € 1,240,572 IS 97606 Lespezi € 1,449,901 € 1,746,074 € 2,031,293 IS 97679 Letcani € 2,322,881 € 2,797,379 € 3,254,327 IS 97722 Lungani € 1,300,312 € 1,565,928 € 1,821,720 IS 97777 Madarjac € 506,193 € 609,593 € 709,169 IS 97811 Mircesti € 984,872 € 1,186,053 € 1,379,793 IS 97875 Mironeasa € 1,334,097 € 1,606,614 € 1,869,053 IS 97919 Miroslava € 9,296,616 € 11,195,64 4 € 13,024,438 IS 98051 Miroslovesti € 1,329,850 € 1,601,500 € 1,863,103 IS 98168 Mogosesti - Siret € 1,265,487 € 1,523,989 € 1,772,931 IS 98113 Mogosesti-Iasi € 1,257,601 € 1,514,492 € 1,761,883 IS 98202 Mosna € 885,132 € 1,065,939 € 1,240,059 IS 98220 Motca € 1,342,432 € 1,616,651 € 1,880,729 215 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario IS 98257 Movileni € 1,147,192 € 1,381,530 € 1,607,202 IS 98300 Oteleni € 858,951 € 1,034,409 € 1,203,379 IS 98337 Plugari € 1,165,247 € 1,403,273 € 1,632,496 IS 98435 Popesti € 1,118,546 € 1,347,032 € 1,567, 068 IS 98505 Popricani € 2,142,094 € 2,579,661 € 3,001,046 IS 98603 Prisacani € 1,164,941 € 1,402,904 € 1,632,067 IS 98649 Probota € 1,059,259 € 1,275,635 € 1,484,008 IS 100335 Rachiteni € 814,298 € 980,636 € 1,140,822 IS 98685 Raducaneni € 2,656,502 € 3,199,148 € 3,721,725 IS 95239 Rediu € 1,172,016 € 1,411,424 € 1,641,979 IS 98738 Romanesti € 724,943 € 873,027 € 1,015,635 IS 100344 Roscani € 458,857 € 552,588 € 642,853 IS 98774 Ruginoasa € 1,401,105 € 1,687,310 € 1,962,930 IS 99290 Scheia € 849, 127 € 1,022,578 € 1,189,615 IS 98827 Schitu-Duca € 1,488,601 € 1,792,678 € 2,085,510 IS 98916 Scinteia € 1,050,836 € 1,265,492 € 1,472,208 IS 98998 Scobinti € 2,214,012 € 2,666,271 € 3,101,803 IS 99058 Sinesti € 1,372,563 € 1,652,937 € 1,922,943 IS 99370 Sipote € 1,688,323 € 2,033,199 € 2,365,319 IS 99101 Siretel € 979,258 € 1,179,292 € 1,371,927 IS 99165 Stolniceni-Prajescu € 1,896,134 € 2,283,459 € 2,656,459 IS 99209 Strunga € 1,048,284 € 1,262,418 € 1,468,632 IS 99441 Tansa € 668,582 € 805,154 € 936,675 IS 99478 Tatarusi € 1,591,619 € 1,916,741 € 2,229,838 IS 99673 Tibana € 1,583,523 € 1,906,991 € 2,218,496 IS 99780 Tibanesti € 2,029,799 € 2,444,428 € 2,843,722 IS 99879 Tiganasi € 1,292,248 € 1,556,217 € 1,810,423 IS 99539 Todiresti € 1,061, 689 € 1,278,561 € 1,487,413 IS 95293 Tomesti € 3,474,182 € 4,183,856 € 4,867,284 IS 99600 Trifesti € 1,534,582 € 1,848,053 € 2,149,930 IS 99922 Tutora € 945,786 € 1,138,983 € 1,325,034 IS 100353 Valea Lupului € 2,336,263 € 2,813,494 € 3,273,075 IS 99968 Valea-Seaca € 1,204,275 € 1,450,273 € 1,687,174 IS 100004 Victoria € 1,962,723 € 2,363,651 € 2,749,750 IS 100086 Vinatori € 1,098,057 € 1,322,358 € 1,538,363 IS 100148 Vladeni € 1,195,666 € 1,439,906 € 1,675,113 216 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario IS 100219 Voinesti € 2,093,993 € 2,52 1,735 € 2,933,657 IF 179221 Bragadiru € 16,657,293 € 20,059,894 € 23,336,652 IF 100576 Buftea € 19,990,497 € 24,073,975 € 28,006,428 IF 179285 Chitila € 16,720,273 € 20,135,739 € 23,424,886 IF 179409 Magurele € 14,334,024 € 17,262,049 € 20,081,783 IF 179481 Otopeni € 69,297,276 € 83,452,696 € 97,084,588 IF 179515 Pantelimon € 26,633,124 € 32,073,498 € 37,312,663 IF 179533 Popesti Leordeni € 26,096,786 € 31,427,602 € 36,561,260 IF 179551 Voluntari € 150,690,939 € 181,472,721 € 211,116,060 IF 102543 1 Decembrie € 7,741,895 € 9,323,340 € 10,846,295 IF 100834 Afumati € 11,053,952 € 13,311,953 € 15,486,444 IF 100969 Balotesti € 10,537,256 € 12,689,711 € 14,762,559 IF 101145 Berceni € 6,832,350 € 8,228,001 € 9,572,034 IF 101298 Branesti € 5,720,905 € 6,889,520 € 8,014,914 IF 101742 Cernica € 7,231,172 € 8,708,291 € 10,130,779 IF 179249 Chiajna € 29,680,607 € 35,743,493 € 41,582,148 IF 101902 Ciolpani € 5,485,919 € 6,606,533 € 7,685,702 IF 101957 Ciorogarla € 5,651,034 € 6,805,376 € 7,917,026 IF 102035 Clinceni € 7,484,819 € 9,013,750 € 10,486,135 IF 179588 Copaceni € 3,239,825 € 3,901,627 € 4,538,953 IF 102160 Corbeanca € 5,919,060 € 7,128,152 € 8,292,527 IF 102213 Cornetu € 3,817,592 € 4,597,415 € 5,348,397 IF 102473 Dascalu € 2,252,636 € 2,71 2,784 € 3,155,914 IF 102525 Darasti € 2,198,081 € 2,647,085 € 3,079,483 IF 179310 Dobroesti € 9,700,060 € 11,681,501 € 13,589,659 IF 102570 Domnesti € 8,345,458 € 10,050,192 € 11,691,878 IF 102605 Dragomiresti € 11,248,631 € 13,546,399 € 15,759,187 IF 103130 Ganeasa € 3,429,409 € 4,129,937 € 4,804,557 IF 179347 Glina € 4,950,639 € 5,961,911 € 6,935,782 IF 103443 Gradistea € 2,226,267 € 2,681,029 € 3,118,972 IF 103513 Gruiu € 4,328,101 € 5,212,206 € 6,063,614 IF 179383 Jilava € 15,312,325 € 18,440,1 89 € 21,452,370 IF 104243 Moara Vlasiei € 4,064,018 € 4,894,179 € 5,693,637 IF 179463 Mogosoaia € 12,781,199 € 15,392,027 € 17,906,295 IF 104421 Nuci € 2,059,483 € 2,480,176 € 2,885,309 IF 104546 Peris € 4,955,621 € 5,967,911 € 6,942,761 217 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario IF 104582 Petrechioaia € 2,076,991 € 2,501,259 € 2,909,837 IF 105160 Snagov € 10,995,202 € 13,241,202 € 15,404,136 IF 105419 Stefanesti € 8,420,008 € 10,139,971 € 11,796,323 IF 105570 Tunari € 7,083,108 € 8,529,982 € 9,923,343 IF 105936 Vidra € 6,243,336 € 7,518,66 8 € 8,746,833 MM 106318 Baia Mare € 123,309,211 € 148,497,702 € 172,754,613 MM 106559 Sighetu Marmatiei € 20,278,596 € 24,420,924 € 28,410,051 MM 106684 Baia Sprie € 5,719,943 € 6,888,361 € 8,013,566 MM 106746 Borsa € 9,159,971 € 11,031,087 € 12,833,00 1 MM 106782 Cavnic € 1,959,822 € 2,360,157 € 2,745,685 MM 108017 Dragomiresti € 2,280,420 € 2,746,243 € 3,194,839 MM 108892 Salistea de Sus € 2,479,622 € 2,986,137 € 3,473,918 MM 108963 Seini € 3,866,454 € 4,656,258 € 5,416,852 MM 109176 Somcuta Mare € 2,971,303 € 3,578,254 € 4,162,757 MM 106817 Targu Lapus € 7,255,452 € 8,737,530 € 10,164,795 MM 106461 Tautii Magheraus € 6,658,468 € 8,018,599 € 9,328,427 MM 109265 Ulmeni € 2,856,978 € 3,440,575 € 4,002,589 MM 106979 Viseu de Sus € 7,402,840 € 8,91 5,025 € 10,371,283 MM 107001 Ardusat € 942,061 € 1,134,497 € 1,319,816 MM 107047 Arinis € 779,433 € 938,649 € 1,091,976 MM 107083 Asuaju de Sus € 769,893 € 927,160 € 1,078,610 MM 107118 Baita de sub Codru € 546,106 € 657,660 € 765,088 MM 107154 Baiut € 755,750 € 910,128 € 1,058,796 MM 107190 Basesti € 1,288,914 € 1,552,202 € 1,805,752 MM 107234 Bicaz € 572,815 € 689,824 € 802,506 MM 107314 Birsana € 1,776,584 € 2,139,489 € 2,488,972 MM 107270 Bistra € 1,326,763 € 1,597,782 € 1,858,778 MM 107350 Bocicoiu Mare € 926,481 € 1,115,734 € 1,297,988 MM 107403 Bogdan Voda € 1,249,519 € 1,504,759 € 1,750,560 MM 107430 Boiu Mare € 673,821 € 811,463 € 944,015 MM 107485 Botiza € 1,409,023 € 1,696,846 € 1,974,024 MM 107519 Budesti € 1,007,724 € 1,213,572 € 1 ,411,808 MM 107546 Calinesti € 1,335,534 € 1,608,344 € 1,871,065 MM 107715 Campulung la Tisa € 808,152 € 973,233 € 1,132,210 MM 107582 Cernesti € 2,091,570 € 2,518,817 € 2,930,262 MM 107662 Cicarlau € 1,381,517 € 1,663,721 € 1,935,487 218 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario MM 179837 Coas € 899,477 € 1,083,214 € 1,260,156 MM 179846 Cotau € 938,979 € 1,130,786 € 1,315,498 MM 107733 Copalnic Manastur € 1,938,947 € 2,335,018 € 2,716,440 MM 107868 Coroieni € 1,965,364 € 2,366,831 € 2,753,450 MM 107920 Cupseni € 1,059,630 € 1,276,082 € 1,484, 528 MM 107975 Desesti € 685,501 € 825,528 € 960,377 MM 108035 Dumbravita € 2,120,497 € 2,553,653 € 2,970,789 MM 108106 Farcasa € 3,332,577 € 4,013,326 € 4,668,897 MM 179855 Gardani € 396,974 € 478,064 € 556,156 MM 108151 Giulesti € 1,146,959 € 1,381,2 49 € 1,606,875 MM 106363 Grosi € 1,431,898 € 1,724,393 € 2,006,070 MM 179622 Grosii Tiblesului € 679,018 € 817,722 € 951,296 MM 108204 Ieud € 1,782,808 € 2,146,984 € 2,497,691 MM 108222 Lapus € 1,319,050 € 1,588,494 € 1,847,972 MM 108240 Leordina € 1,462,551 € 1,761,308 € 2,049,015 MM 108268 Miresu Mare € 1,726,791 € 2,079,524 € 2,419,212 MM 108348 Moisei € 3,567,490 € 4,296,224 € 4,998,007 MM 108366 Oarta de Jos € 594,939 € 716,467 € 833,501 MM 108400 Ocna Sugatag € 1,186,372 € 1,428,714 € 1,662,0 92 MM 179864 Oncesti € 776,904 € 935,603 € 1,088,432 MM 108455 Petrova € 1,306,871 € 1,573,827 € 1,830,909 Poienile de sub MM 108473 Munte € 2,354,957 € 2,836,007 € 3,299,265 MM 179604 Poienile Izei € 439,275 € 529,006 € 615,419 MM 106407 Recea € 3,11 5,044 € 3,751,357 € 4,364,136 MM 108491 Remetea Chioarului € 1,029,927 € 1,240,311 € 1,442,914 MM 108552 Remeti € 826,652 € 995,513 € 1,158,128 MM 108598 Repedea € 1,774,980 € 2,137,556 € 2,486,724 MM 108614 Rona de Jos € 646,270 € 778,284 € 905,416 MM 108632 Rona de Sus € 1,216,644 € 1,465,169 € 1,704,503 MM 108669 Rozavlea € 1,560,367 € 1,879,105 € 2,186,054 MM 108696 Ruscova € 1,515,065 € 1,824,549 € 2,122,587 MM 108794 Sacalaseni € 2,484,764 € 2,992,329 € 3,481,122 MM 108874 Sacel € 1,073,684 € 1,293,007 € 1,504,218 MM 108918 Salsig € 659,550 € 794,276 € 924,021 MM 108945 Sapanta € 1,255,791 € 1,512,313 € 1,759,347 219 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario MM 106620 Sarasau € 1,219,835 € 1,469,012 € 1,708,973 MM 108712 Satulung € 1,616,327 € 1,946,496 € 2,264,454 MM 179613 Sieu € 1 ,078,253 € 1,298,509 € 1,510,619 MM 109096 Sisesti € 1,960,874 € 2,361,424 € 2,747,159 MM 109005 Stramtura € 2,126,280 € 2,560,617 € 2,978,890 MM 109041 Suciu de Sus € 1,304,808 € 1,571,342 € 1,828,019 MM 106648 Vadu Izei € 910,211 € 1,096,141 € 1,275, 194 MM 109354 Valea Chioarului € 756,891 € 911,501 € 1,060,394 MM 109425 Vima Mica € 567,205 € 683,069 € 794,647 MM 109504 Viseu de Jos € 1,491,776 € 1,796,503 € 2,089,960 Drobeta Turnu MH 109773 Severin € 101,269,021 € 121,955,341 € 141,876,591 MH 110063 Orsova € 5,607,995 € 6,753,546 € 7,856,729 MH 109924 Baia de Arama € 2,917,349 € 3,513,278 € 4,087,168 MH 110116 Strehaia € 3,833,617 € 4,616,713 € 5,370,848 MH 110232 Vanju Mare € 2,513,898 € 3,027,414 € 3,521,939 MH 110571 Bacles € 883,892 € 1,0 64,446 € 1,238,322 MH 110296 Bala € 1,338,514 € 1,611,934 € 1,875,241 MH 110535 Balacita € 899,238 € 1,082,926 € 1,259,821 MH 110456 Balta € 329,252 € 396,509 € 461,278 MH 110688 Balvanesti € 821,400 € 989,188 € 1,150,770 MH 114060 Braniste € 759,237 € 914,327 € 1,063,681 MH 110740 Breznita Motru € 613,884 € 739,283 € 860,044 MH 110820 Breznita Ocol € 1,128,351 € 1,358,840 € 1,580,805 MH 110875 Brosteni € 948,351 € 1,142,072 € 1,328,628 MH 110946 Burila Mare € 1,903,261 € 2,292,043 € 2,666,445 MH 111006 Butoiesti € 1,035,122 € 1,246,568 € 1,450,193 MH 111097 Cazanesti € 828,486 € 997,721 € 1,160,698 MH 111220 Ciresu € 270,324 € 325,543 € 378,720 MH 111275 Corcova € 1,328,894 € 1,600,349 € 1,861,764 MH 111417 Corlatel € 552,078 € 664,852 € 773,4 55 MH 111444 Cujmir € 1,128,176 € 1,358,630 € 1,580,560 MH 111550 Darvari € 843,209 € 1,015,453 € 1,181,326 MH 111480 Devesel € 1,681,999 € 2,025,582 € 2,356,458 MH 112904 Dubova € 800,405 € 963,905 € 1,121,357 MH 111587 Dumbrava € 555,093 € 668,483 € 777,679 220 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario MH 112245 Eselnita € 3,669,694 € 4,419,305 € 5,141,193 MH 111685 Floresti € 775,287 € 933,655 € 1,086,167 MH 111783 Garla Mare € 1,046,358 € 1,260,098 € 1,465,933 MH 111818 Godeanu € 343,001 € 413,067 € 480,540 MH 111863 Gogosu € 2,553,999 € 3,075,706 € 3,578,119 MH 111916 Greci € 398,177 € 479,513 € 557,841 MH 111989 Grozesti € 728,571 € 877,397 € 1,020,719 MH 112030 Gruia € 1,077,614 € 1,297,739 € 1,509,723 MH 112076 Hinova € 578,122 € 696,216 € 809,942 MH 112129 Husnicioara € 685,680 € 825,745 € 960,629 MH 112263 Ilovat € 444,951 € 535,841 € 623,370 MH 112334 Ilovita € 1,812,246 € 2,182,435 € 2,538,933 MH 112370 Isverna € 863,781 € 1,040,226 € 1,210,145 MH 112469 Izvoru Barzii € 3,760,507 € 4,528,670 € 5,268,422 MH 112548 Jiana € 1 ,492,146 € 1,796,948 € 2,090,477 MH 112600 Livezile € 809,533 € 974,897 € 1,134,146 MH 112664 Malovat € 2,726,958 € 3,283,997 € 3,820,433 MH 112744 Obarsia Camp € 761,721 € 917,318 € 1,067,161 MH 110027 Obarsia Closani € 304,020 € 366,122 € 425,927 MH 112771 Oprisor € 843,280 € 1,015,537 € 1,181,424 MH 112806 Padina € 680,050 € 818,965 € 952,742 MH 112879 Patulele € 1,215,479 € 1,463,766 € 1,702,871 MH 112959 Podeni € 1,621,706 € 1,952,974 € 2,271,990 MH 112995 Ponoare € 855,261 € 1,029,966 € 1,198 ,210 MH 113153 Poroina Mare € 506,892 € 610,435 € 710,149 MH 113206 Pristol € 648,937 € 781,496 € 909,152 MH 113233 Prunisor € 658,124 € 792,560 € 922,023 MH 113395 Punghina € 1,332,368 € 1,604,532 € 1,866,630 MH 113466 Rogova € 817,967 € 985,054 € 1,145,961 MH 113493 Salcia € 874,981 € 1,053,714 € 1,225,836 MH 109826 Simian € 2,891,495 € 3,482,144 € 4,050,948 MH 113625 Sisesti € 1,498,721 € 1,804,866 € 2,099,688 MH 113698 Sovarna € 468,789 € 564,549 € 656,767 MH 113518 Stangaceaua € 536,458 € 646 ,041 € 751,571 MH 113607 Svinita € 875,610 € 1,054,471 € 1,226,718 MH 113732 Tamna € 2,237,696 € 2,694,793 € 3,134,984 221 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario MH 113849 Vanatori € 506,287 € 609,707 € 709,302 MH 113894 Vanjulet € 903,222 € 1,087,724 € 1,265,402 MH 113929 Vladaia € 906,950 € 1,092,213 € 1,270,625 MH 113974 Voloiac € 541,096 € 651,627 € 758,069 MH 114079 Vrata € 717,115 € 863,600 € 1,004,668 MS 114809 Reghin € 19,816,692 € 23,864,667 € 27,762,929 MS 114514 Sighisoara € 22,945,138 € 27,632,163 € 32,145,842 MS 114319 Tirgu Mures € 164,413,429 € 197,998,318 € 230,341,092 MS 114925 Tirnaveni € 10,775,652 € 12,976,805 € 15,096,549 MS 117827 Iernut € 5,166,742 € 6,222,157 € 7,238,539 MS 114710 Ludus € 9,110,932 € 10,972,031 € 12,764,298 MS 118281 Miercurea Niraj € 4,309,212 € 5,189,459 € 6,037,151 MS 119242 Sarmasu € 3,092,261 € 3,723,920 € 4,332,218 MS 119331 Singeorgiu de Padure € 4,224,786 € 5,087,786 € 5,918,870 MS 114854 Sovata € 7,510,744 € 9,044,970 € 10,522,455 MS 119894 Ungheni € 4,314,279 € 5,195,561 € 6,044,250 MS 114970 Acatari € 3,081,455 € 3,710,906 € 4,317,078 MS 115076 Adamus € 1,770,821 € 2,132,549 € 2,480,898 MS 114603 Albesti € 2,141,482 € 2,578,925 € 3,000,189 MS 115147 Alunis € 1,393,199 € 1,677,789 € 1,951,854 MS 115183 Apold € 1,091,914 € 1,314,9 61 € 1,529,758 MS 115236 Atintis € 646,359 € 778,391 € 905,540 MS 115575 Bagaciu € 1,454,434 € 1,751,533 € 2,037,643 MS 115307 Bahnea € 1,504,100 € 1,811,343 € 2,107,224 MS 115600 Bala € 465,245 € 560,281 € 651,802 MS 115637 Balauseri € 2,103,195 € 2,532,816 € 2,946,549 MS 115389 Band € 2,620,825 € 3,156,183 € 3,671,741 MS 115520 Batos € 1,817,795 € 2,189,118 € 2,546,707 MS 115708 Beica de Jos € 967,528 € 1,165,166 € 1,355,495 MS 120511 Bereni € 630,208 € 758,941 € 882,913 MS 115771 Bichis € 677,5 34 € 815,935 € 949,217 MS 115824 Bogata € 1,122,602 € 1,351,917 € 1,572,751 MS 115851 Breaza € 1,274,188 € 1,534,468 € 1,785,121 MS 115897 Brincovenesti € 2,082,134 € 2,507,453 € 2,917,043 MS 115959 Ceuasu de Cimpie € 2,558,063 € 3,080,601 € 3,583,813 MS 116046 Chetani € 988,025 € 1,189,850 € 1,384,211 222 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario MS 120478 Chibed € 727,543 € 876,159 € 1,019,278 MS 116126 Chiheru de Jos € 677,018 € 815,313 € 948,493 MS 116171 Coroisinmartin € 617,601 € 743,759 € 865,251 MS 120487 Corunca € 3,700,024 € 4,455,83 2 € 5,183,686 MS 116224 Cozma € 412,313 € 496,537 € 577,645 MS 116288 Craciunesti € 1,514,157 € 1,823,456 € 2,121,315 MS 116340 Craiesti € 811,203 € 976,909 € 1,136,485 MS 114355 Cristesti € 2,670,464 € 3,215,962 € 3,741,285 MS 116395 Cucerdea € 642,6 37 € 773,909 € 900,326 MS 116439 Cuci € 885,305 € 1,066,148 € 1,240,301 MS 116493 Danes € 2,731,728 € 3,289,741 € 3,827,116 MS 116545 Deda € 2,789,811 € 3,359,689 € 3,908,490 MS 116590 Eremitu € 1,395,202 € 1,680,201 € 1,954,660 MS 116652 Ernei € 2,44 6,215 € 2,945,906 € 3,427,116 MS 116723 Faragau € 595,529 € 717,179 € 834,329 MS 116796 Fintinele € 1,798,122 € 2,165,427 € 2,519,146 MS 116867 Galesti € 1,073,670 € 1,292,990 € 1,504,198 MS 116938 Ganesti € 1,548,369 € 1,864,655 € 2,169,244 MS 116983 Gheorghe Doja € 1,057,883 € 1,273,977 € 1,482,080 MS 117042 Ghindari € 1,821,782 € 2,193,919 € 2,552,293 MS 117113 Glodeni € 1,756,692 € 2,115,533 € 2,461,102 MS 117177 Gornesti € 1,993,506 € 2,400,721 € 2,792,876 MS 117275 Grebenisu de Cimpie € 1,201 ,430 € 1,446,847 € 1,683,188 MS 117319 Gurghiu € 3,132,085 € 3,771,879 € 4,388,011 MS 117426 Hodac € 2,132,388 € 2,567,972 € 2,987,448 MS 117505 Hodosa € 689,502 € 830,347 € 965,983 MS 117550 Ibanesti € 2,497,085 € 3,007,167 € 3,498,384 MS 117667 Iclanzel € 889,628 € 1,071,353 € 1,246,357 MS 117783 Ideciu de Jos € 779,554 € 938,794 € 1,092,145 MS 117925 Livezeni € 1,173,634 € 1,413,374 € 1,644,247 MS 117998 Lunca € 1,230,508 € 1,481,866 € 1,723,926 MS 118058 Lunca Bradului € 1,464,530 € 1,763,691 € 2,051,787 MS 120502 Madaras € 507,383 € 611,026 € 710,837 MS 118094 Magherani € 677,719 € 816,158 € 949,476 MS 118209 Mica € 1,674,249 € 2,016,250 € 2,345,601 MS 118370 Mihesu de Cimpie € 1,111,074 € 1,338,034 € 1,556,600 223 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario MS 118469 Nades € 1,071,539 € 1,290,423 € 1,501,212 MS 118511 Neaua € 593,044 € 714,185 € 830,847 MS 118575 Ogra € 986,904 € 1,188,499 € 1,382,639 MS 118691 Panet € 2,001,986 € 2,410,933 € 2,804,756 MS 118637 Papiu Ilarian € 541,518 € 652,134 € 758,659 MS 118753 Pasareni € 811,6 09 € 977,397 € 1,137,053 MS 118799 Petelea € 977,665 € 1,177,373 € 1,369,695 MS 118824 Pogaceaua € 1,604,353 € 1,932,076 € 2,247,678 MS 118931 Rastolita € 1,342,736 € 1,617,018 € 1,881,156 MS 118995 Riciu € 1,647,710 € 1,984,289 € 2,308,421 MS 119153 Rusii Munti € 2,526,237 € 3,042,274 € 3,539,226 MS 120496 Sarateni € 1,477,752 € 1,779,614 € 2,070,312 MS 119206 Saschiz € 2,115,475 € 2,547,605 € 2,963,753 MS 119750 Saulia € 1,286,392 € 1,549,165 € 1,802,219 MS 119803 Sincai € 891,980 € 1,074,186 € 1 ,249,653 MS 114382 Sincraiu de Mures € 3,496,032 € 4,210,170 € 4,897,896 MS 114417 Singeorgiu de Mures € 4,089,574 € 4,924,955 € 5,729,441 MS 119386 Singer € 900,368 € 1,084,287 € 1,261,403 MS 119466 Sinpaul € 2,495,910 € 3,005,752 € 3,496,738 MS 119527 Sinpetru de Cimpie € 1,300,659 € 1,566,346 € 1,822,207 MS 114453 Sintana de Mures € 2,691,789 € 3,241,643 € 3,771,162 MS 119590 Solovastru € 1,033,223 € 1,244,281 € 1,447,532 MS 119625 Stinceni € 1,285,917 € 1,548,593 € 1,801,553 MS 119661 Suplac € 1,191,795 € 1,435,245 € 1,669,690 MS 119723 Suseni € 889,160 € 1,070,789 € 1,245,701 MS 119858 Taureni € 541,603 € 652,237 € 758,779 MS 119974 Valea Larga € 1,108,277 € 1,334,665 € 1,552,681 MS 120076 Vargata € 753,222 € 907,084 € 1,055,255 MS 120138 Vatava € 977,269 € 1,176,897 € 1,369,141 MS 120174 Vetca € 432,011 € 520,258 € 605,241 MS 120218 Viisoara € 987,869 € 1,189,662 € 1,383,992 MS 120254 Vinatori € 1,495,374 € 1,800,836 € 2,095,000 MS 120316 Voivodeni € 761,036 € 916,494 € 1,066,202 MS 120343 Zagar € 628,538 € 756,930 € 880,574 MS 120370 Zau de Cimpie € 1,378,672 € 1,660,295 € 1,931,502 NT 120726 Piatra Neamt € 77,768,397 € 93,654,222 € 108,952,520 224 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario NT 120860 Roman € 29,508,012 € 35,535,642 € 41,340,344 NT 120968 Bicaz € 4,323,968 € 5,207,229 € 6,057,823 NT 124117 Roznov € 4,499,247 € 5,418,312 € 6,303,386 NT 121055 Targu Neamt € 14,572,115 € 17,548,775 € 20,415,345 NT 121108 Agapia € 1,258,231 € 1,515,251 € 1,762,765 NT 124938 Alexandru cel Bun € 3,993,829 € 4,809,652 € 5,595,303 NT 121153 Bahna € 899,462 € 1,083,196 € 1,260,135 NT 121242 Baltatesti € 1,438,102 € 1,731,864 € 2,014,762 NT 121386 Bara € 593,470 € 714,699 € 831,444 NT 121466 Bargaoani € 962,396 € 1,158,986 € 1,348,304 NT 121340 Bicazu Ardelean € 1,039,769 € 1,252, 164 € 1,456,704 NT 121297 Bicaz Chei € 1,885,684 € 2,270,875 € 2,641,819 NT 121607 Bodesti € 1,157,915 € 1,394,443 € 1,622,224 NT 125178 Boghicea € 627,759 € 755,992 € 879,483 NT 121652 Borca € 1,693,436 € 2,039,355 € 2,372,482 NT 121732 Borlesti € 2,706,825 € 3,259,750 € 3,792,226 NT 121796 Botesti € 1,259,936 € 1,517,305 € 1,765,154 NT 121876 Bozieni € 824,363 € 992,757 € 1,154,923 NT 121938 Brusturi € 849,237 € 1,022,711 € 1,189,770 NT 122061 Candesti € 1,206,513 € 1,452,969 € 1,690,309 NT 122025 Ceahlau € 1,002,199 € 1,206,920 € 1,404,068 NT 120888 Cordun € 4,979,667 € 5,996,868 € 6,976,449 NT 122132 Costisa € 785,502 € 945,957 € 1,100,478 NT 122187 Cracaoani € 2,337,660 € 2,815,176 € 3,275,032 NT 122249 Damuc € 1,132,701 € 1,364,079 € 1,58 6,900 NT 122285 Dobreni € 534,008 € 643,090 € 748,138 NT 125098 Dochia € 897,971 € 1,081,400 € 1,258,045 NT 122347 Doljesti € 1,777,467 € 2,140,552 € 2,490,208 NT 125132 Draganesti € 618,192 € 744,471 € 866,079 NT 122392 Dragomiresti € 761,260 € 916,7 63 € 1,066,515 NT 122463 Dulcesti € 772,051 € 929,758 € 1,081,633 NT 120771 Dumbrava Rosie € 3,410,893 € 4,107,639 € 4,778,617 NT 122551 Farcasa € 802,085 € 965,928 € 1,123,711 NT 122613 Faurei € 671,252 € 808,369 € 940,415 NT 125150 Gadinti € 533,790 € 642,827 € 747,832 NT 122828 Garcina € 2,264,653 € 2,727,256 € 3,172,749 225 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario NT 122668 Gheraiesti € 1,845,256 € 2,222,188 € 2,585,180 NT 125114 Ghindaoani € 717,276 € 863,795 € 1,004,895 NT 122702 Girov € 2,073,020 € 2,496,477 € 2,904,274 NT 122864 Grinties € 742,011 € 893,582 € 1,039,547 NT 122908 Grumazesti € 1,220,413 € 1,469,708 € 1,709,783 NT 122953 Hangu € 1,529,884 € 1,842,395 € 2,143,348 NT 120922 Horia € 1,871,750 € 2,254,094 € 2,622,297 NT 123013 Icusesti € 1,211,547 € 1,459,031 € 1,697,362 NT 123102 Ion Creanga € 1,623,000 € 1,954,532 € 2,273,802 NT 123175 Margineni € 1,146,185 € 1,380,317 € 1,605,790 NT 123228 Moldoveni € 667,101 € 803,370 € 934,600 NT 125169 Negresti € 612,095 € 737,129 € 857,538 NT 123255 Oniceni € 790,295 € 951,729 € 1,107,192 NT 125141 Pancesti € 403,984 € 486,507 € 565,977 NT 123601 Pangarati € 1,884,461 € 2,269,402 € 2,640,106 NT 123371 Pastraveni € 1,072,258 € 1,291,290 € 1,502,220 NT 123424 Petricani € 1,278,462 € 1,539,615 € 1,791,109 NT 123479 Piatra Soimului € 2,063,955 € 2,485,561 € 2,891,575 NT 123521 Pipirig € 2,055,832 € 2,475,779 € 2,880,194 NT 123674 Podoleni € 1,208,778 € 1,455,696 € 1,693,482 NT 123790 Poiana Teiului € 1,688,652 € 2,033,595 € 2,365,780 NT 123709 Poienari € 389,816 € 469,444 € 546,127 NT 123914 Raucesti € 2,529,017 € 3,045,621 € 3,543,120 NT 123969 Razboieni € 669,950 € 806,801 € 938,591 NT 124028 Rediu € 1,946,975 € 2,344,685 € 2,727,686 NT 124073 Romani € 833,751 € 1,004,062 € 1,168,074 NT 125105 Ruginoasa € 617,631 € 74 3,795 € 865,293 NT 124206 Sabaoani € 3,143,235 € 3,785,307 € 4,403,632 NT 124153 Sagna € 1,930,379 € 2,324,699 € 2,704,436 NT 120824 Savinesti € 3,950,566 € 4,757,552 € 5,534,692 NT 124233 Secuieni € 1,057,871 € 1,273,963 € 1,482,064 NT 124331 Stanita € 586,188 € 705,929 € 821,241 NT 124411 Stefan cel Mare € 1,010,276 € 1,216,646 € 1,415,384 NT 124634 Tamaseni € 2,421,105 € 2,915,666 € 3,391,937 NT 124493 Tarcau € 1,450,758 € 1,747,106 € 2,032,493 NT 124563 Tasca € 2,702,788 € 3,254,889 € 3,786,571 226 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario NT 124616 Tazlau € 974,754 € 1,173,869 € 1,365,618 NT 124803 Tibucani € 1,267,005 € 1,525,818 € 1,775,058 NT 124661 Timisesti € 880,688 € 1,060,588 € 1,233,833 NT 124723 Trifesti € 1,352,952 € 1,629,320 € 1,895,468 NT 124750 Tupilati € 780,113 € 939, 467 € 1,092,928 NT 124849 Urecheni € 1,008,179 € 1,214,121 € 1,412,446 NT 124885 Valea Ursului € 1,084,405 € 1,305,917 € 1,519,237 NT 125123 Valeni € 863,815 € 1,040,267 € 1,210,194 NT 125016 Vanatori € 2,088,580 € 2,515,217 € 2,926,074 NT 125061 Zanesti € 1,398,318 € 1,683,954 € 1,959,026 OT 125472 Caracal € 30,453,834 € 36,674,668 € 42,665,428 OT 125347 Slatina € 71,543,598 € 86,157,877 € 100,231,657 OT 125418 Bals € 9,237,422 € 11,124,359 € 12,941,508 OT 125542 Corabia € 6,046,584 € 7,281,725 € 8,471,186 OT 125622 Draganesti-Olt € 4,568,594 € 5,501,825 € 6,400,541 OT 128105 Piatra-Olt € 2,082,825 € 2,508,285 € 2,918,011 OT 128374 Potcoava € 1,859,883 € 2,239,803 € 2,605,672 OT 128711 Scornicesti € 4,396,962 € 5,295,134 € 6,160,087 OT 125659 Babiciu € 662,701 € 798,071 € 928,435 OT 125677 Baldovinesti € 580,977 € 699,654 € 813,942 OT 130286 Balteni € 803,089 € 967,137 € 1,125,117 OT 125757 Barasti € 672,232 € 809,549 € 941,788 OT 125846 Barza € 673,151 € 810,656 € 943,076 OT 125873 Bobicesti € 1,304,155 € 1,570,556 € 1,827,105 OT 126022 Brancoveni € 716,018 € 862,279 € 1,003,132 OT 125962 Brastavatu € 1,494,422 € 1,799,689 € 2,093,666 OT 125999 Brebeni € 2,306,128 € 2,777,203 € 3,230,855 OT 126077 Bucinisu € 723,974 € 871,861 € 1,014,2 79 OT 130295 Calui € 685,683 € 825,748 € 960,633 OT 126166 Carlogani € 701,521 € 844,821 € 982,822 OT 126102 Cezieni € 603,878 € 727,233 € 846,025 OT 126148 Cilieni € 878,373 € 1,057,799 € 1,230,589 OT 126228 Colonesti € 980,339 € 1,180,594 € 1,373,44 2 OT 126326 Corbu € 790,308 € 951,746 € 1,107,212 OT 126380 Coteana € 2,917,512 € 3,513,475 € 4,087,397 OT 126406 Crampoia € 629,518 € 758,110 € 881,946 227 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario OT 126503 Cungrea € 2,116,481 € 2,548,817 € 2,965,163 OT 126433 Curtisoara € 1,814,156 € 2,184,735 € 2,541,609 OT 126585 Daneasa € 1,101,269 € 1,326,227 € 1,542,864 OT 126647 Deveselu € 1,361,758 € 1,639,925 € 1,907,805 OT 126674 Dobretu € 523,626 € 630,588 € 733,594 OT 126718 Dobrosloveni € 1,762,211 € 2,122,179 € 2,468,835 OT 126772 Dobroteasa € 667,713 € 804,108 € 935,458 OT 126825 Dobrun € 1,436,921 € 1,730,442 € 2,013,108 OT 125490 Draghiceni € 816,054 € 982,750 € 1,143,281 OT 126905 Fagetelu € 500,106 € 602,263 € 700,642 OT 126978 Falcoiu € 1,021,122 € 1,229,707 € 1,430,578 OT 127019 Farcasele € 848,154 € 1,021,407 € 1,188,253 OT 127064 Ganeasa € 1,100,768 € 1,325,623 € 1,542,162 OT 125588 Garcov € 673,881 € 811,536 € 944,099 OT 130302 Gavanesti € 777,107 € 935,848 € 1,088,717 OT 130311 Ghimpeteni € 707,138 € 851,586 € 990,692 OT 127126 Giuvarasti € 755,964 € 910,386 € 1,059,096 OT 127144 Gostavatu € 954,660 € 1,149,669 € 1,337,466 OT 127171 Gradinari € 1,062,704 € 1,279,783 € 1,488,834 OT 130320 Gradinile € 682,505 € 821,920 € 956,180 OT 127224 Grojdibodu € 760,418 € 915,750 € 1,065,336 OT 130339 Gura Padinii € 642,173 € 773,351 € 899,677 OT 127251 Ianca € 899,868 € 1,083,685 € 1,260,703 OT 127288 Iancu Jianu € 1,055,895 € 1,271,584 € 1,479,296 OT 127322 Icoana € 1,438,314 € 1,732,120 € 2,015,059 OT 130348 Ipotesti € 473,979 € 570,799 € 664,038 OT 127368 Izbiceni € 1,869,371 € 2,251,229 € 2,618,965 OT 127386 Izvoarele € 1,348,506 € 1,623,966 € 1,889,239 OT 127411 Leleasca € 670,131 € 807,019 € 938,844 OT 127493 Maruntei € 1,025,601 € 1,235,102 € 1,436,854 OT 127536 Mihaesti € 797,901 € 960,889 € 1,117,849 OT 127563 Milcov € 885,481 € 1,066,359 € 1,240,547 OT 127625 Morunglav € 732,746 € 882,424 € 1,026,567 OT 127689 Movileni € 995,155 € 1,198,436 € 1,394,199 OT 127714 N.Titulescu € 1,726,356 € 2,079,000 € 2,418,602 OT 127750 Obarsia € 842,298 € 1,014,355 € 1,180,049 228 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario OT 127812 Oboga € 908,377 € 1,093,932 € 1,272,624 OT 127858 Oporelu € 776,578 € 935,210 € 1,087,976 OT 127901 Optasi Magura € 443,608 € 534,224 € 621,489 OT 127938 Orlea € 850,350 € 1,024,052 € 1,191,33 0 OT 130357 Osica de Jos € 571,755 € 688,548 € 801,022 OT 127983 Osica de Sus € 1,173,741 € 1,413,502 € 1,644,396 OT 128178 Parscoveni € 832,678 € 1,002,769 € 1,166,570 OT 128052 Perieti € 624,330 € 751,862 € 874,678 OT 128221 Plesoiu € 910,601 € 1,09 6,610 € 1,275,740 OT 128301 Poboru € 890,939 € 1,072,932 € 1,248,194 OT 128436 Priseaca € 580,004 € 698,482 € 812,578 OT 128472 Radomiresti € 1,355,495 € 1,632,384 € 1,899,032 OT 128524 Redea € 1,008,861 € 1,214,942 € 1,413,401 OT 128560 Rotunda € 762 ,969 € 918,822 € 1,068,910 OT 128588 Rusanesti € 1,290,504 € 1,554,117 € 1,807,980 OT 128882 Samburesti € 451,907 € 544,219 € 633,116 OT 130366 Sarbii-Magura € 1,810,194 € 2,179,964 € 2,536,058 OT 128613 Scarisoara € 910,530 € 1,096,524 € 1,275,640 OT 128659 Schitu € 620,176 € 746,860 € 868,858 OT 128864 Seaca € 660,353 € 795,244 € 925,146 OT 129246 Serbanesti € 918,181 € 1,105,739 € 1,286,360 OT 125374 Slatioara € 875,966 € 1,054,900 € 1,227,217 OT 130384 Soparlita € 506,850 € 610,384 € 710,090 OT 128962 Spineni € 890,135 € 1,071,963 € 1,247,067 OT 129040 Sprancenata € 798,168 € 961,211 € 1,118,223 OT 129282 Stefan cel Mare € 701,701 € 845,039 € 983,075 OT 129095 Stoenesti € 577,243 € 695,157 € 808,710 OT 129111 Stoicanesti € 966,825 € 1,164,3 19 € 1,354,509 OT 129139 Strejesti € 1,072,610 € 1,291,713 € 1,502,713 OT 129184 Studina € 1,515,123 € 1,824,618 € 2,122,667 OT 129317 Tatulesti € 552,028 € 664,791 € 773,384 OT 129380 Teslui € 687,588 € 828,043 € 963,303 OT 129460 Tia Mare € 962,226 € 1,158,781 € 1,348,066 OT 129503 Topana € 664,245 € 799,931 € 930,599 OT 129567 Traian € 788,400 € 949,448 € 1,104,539 OT 129585 Tufeni € 1,286,171 € 1,548,899 € 1,801,909 229 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario OT 129629 Urzica € 1,050,792 € 1,265,439 € 1,472,147 OT 129718 Vadastra € 524, 145 € 631,213 € 734,321 OT 129745 Vadastrita € 959,408 € 1,155,387 € 1,344,118 OT 129987 Valcele € 997,178 € 1,200,872 € 1,397,033 OT 129656 Valea Mare € 1,034,661 € 1,246,013 € 1,449,547 OT 129763 Valeni € 828,439 € 997,665 € 1,160,633 OT 129816 Verguleasa € 738,300 € 889,113 € 1,034,349 OT 129898 Visina € 1,751,697 € 2,109,518 € 2,454,105 OT 130375 Visina Noua € 596,991 € 718,939 € 836,377 OT 129914 Vitomiresti € 872,460 € 1,050,678 € 1,222,305 OT 130026 Vladila € 632,096 € 761,215 € 885,558 OT 130062 Voineasa € 418,861 € 504,422 € 586,819 OT 130124 Vulpeni € 761,817 € 917,435 € 1,067,296 OT 130231 Vulturesti € 887,190 € 1,068,417 € 1,242,942 PH 131256 Campina € 30,716,368 € 36,990,830 € 43,033,235 PH 130534 Ploiesti € 211,908,873 € 255,195,7 02 € 296,881,596 PH 130954 Azuga € 4,857,736 € 5,850,030 € 6,805,625 PH 130981 Baicoi € 11,017,391 € 13,267,924 € 15,435,223 PH 131069 Boldesti Scaieni € 6,829,293 € 8,224,319 € 9,567,751 PH 131103 Breaza € 8,448,544 € 10,174,336 € 11,836,301 PH 131210 Busteni € 11,011,490 € 13,260,818 € 15,426,956 PH 131336 Comarnic € 5,513,976 € 6,640,321 € 7,725,009 PH 131407 Mizil € 8,461,134 € 10,189,498 € 11,853,940 PH 131443 Plopeni € 5,597,490 € 6,740,894 € 7,842,011 PH 131540 Sinaia € 15,119,106 € 18,207,5 00 € 21,181,672 PH 131577 Slanic € 3,201,355 € 3,855,299 € 4,485,057 PH 131620 Urlati € 6,835,305 € 8,231,559 € 9,576,174 PH 131817 Valenii de Munte € 9,203,976 € 11,084,081 € 12,894,651 PH 131899 Adunati € 995,144 € 1,198,423 € 1,394,184 PH 131933 Albesti Paleologu € 2,103,904 € 2,533,670 € 2,947,542 PH 131988 Alunis € 1,728,561 € 2,081,656 € 2,421,692 PH 132011 Apostolache € 937,496 € 1,128,999 € 1,313,419 PH 132075 Aricesti Rahtivani € 8,902,839 € 10,721,431 € 12,472,763 PH 132137 Aricesti Zeletin € 929,092 € 1,118,879 € 1,301,646 PH 132164 Baba Ana € 1,602,973 € 1,930,414 € 2,245,744 PH 132226 Balta Doamnei € 1,210,159 € 1,457,359 € 1,695,417 230 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario PH 132271 Baltesti € 1,916,918 € 2,308,488 € 2,685,577 PH 132315 Banesti € 3,097,566 € 3,730,309 € 4 ,339,650 PH 130552 Barcanesti € 3,975,063 € 4,787,053 € 5,569,012 PH 136278 Batrani € 906,332 € 1,091,469 € 1,269,759 PH 130614 Berceni € 2,778,398 € 3,345,944 € 3,892,499 PH 132342 Bertea € 976,889 € 1,176,439 € 1,368,609 PH 130678 Blejoi € 8,836,145 € 10,641,112 € 12,379,325 PH 132379 Boldesti GradisteA € 1,004,760 € 1,210,003 € 1,407,656 PH 130712 Brazi € 13,622,016 € 16,404,598 € 19,084,268 PH 132404 Brebu € 5,130,970 € 6,179,079 € 7,188,423 PH 130785 Bucov € 5,440,776 € 6,552,168 € 7,622,457 PH 132459 Calugareni € 757,991 € 912,827 € 1,061,936 PH 132486 Carbunesti € 698,156 € 840,768 € 978,107 PH 132510 Ceptura € 2,796,592 € 3,367,855 € 3,917,990 PH 132574 Cerasu € 1,861,696 € 2,241,986 € 2,608,211 PH 132645 ChiOjdeanca € 966,778 € 1,164,2 63 € 1,354,444 PH 132681 Ciorani € 3,440,902 € 4,143,779 € 4,820,660 PH 136241 Cocorasti Colt € 1,344,740 € 1,619,431 € 1,883,963 PH 132716 CocorastIi MisliI € 1,625,105 € 1,957,066 € 2,276,751 PH 132752 Colceag € 2,035,820 € 2,451,679 € 2,852,158 PH 132805 Cornu € 3,352,246 € 4,037,012 € 4,696,453 PH 132841 Cosminele € 577,255 € 695,171 € 808,726 PH 133018 Draganesti € 1,821,835 € 2,193,983 € 2,552,367 PH 132896 Drajna € 1,807,973 € 2,177,289 € 2,532,947 PH 133090 Dumbrava € 1,826,102 € 2,199,121 € 2,558,345 PH 131461 Dumbravesti € 1,599,745 € 1,926,526 € 2,241,222 PH 133278 Fantanele € 936,163 € 1,127,394 € 1,311,553 PH 133214 FilipestiI de Targ € 3,146,231 € 3,788,915 € 4,407,829 PH 133161 Filipestii de Padure € 5,254,693 € 6,328,074 € 7,361, 756 PH 133330 Floresti € 7,226,761 € 8,702,979 € 10,124,600 PH 133394 Fulga € 1,377,976 € 1,659,457 € 1,930,527 PH 133429 Gherghita € 1,180,352 € 1,421,464 € 1,653,658 PH 133508 Gorgota € 1,902,570 € 2,291,210 € 2,665,476 PH 133562 Gornet € 1,005,345 € 1,210,708 € 1,408,476 PH 133615 Gornet Cricov € 1,558,094 € 1,876,368 € 2,182,870 PH 133688 Gura Vadului € 1,945,182 € 2,342,526 € 2,725,175 231 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario PH 131835 Gura Vitioarei € 2,315,785 € 2,788,833 € 3,244,385 PH 133722 IOrdacheanu € 1,631,758 € 1,965,079 € 2,286,072 PH 133795 Izvoarele € 2,197,027 € 2,645,815 € 3,078,006 PH 133866 Jugureni € 929,808 € 1,119,741 € 1,302,649 PH 133919 Lapos € 770,726 € 928,163 € 1,079,777 PH 133964 Lipanesti € 2,273,085 € 2,737,410 € 3,184,563 PH 134014 Magurele € 1,897,5 26 € 2,285,136 € 2,658,410 PH 134050 Magureni € 2,397,309 € 2,887,009 € 3,358,599 PH 134096 Maneciu € 4,821,076 € 5,805,882 € 6,754,266 PH 134194 Manesti € 1,745,826 € 2,102,448 € 2,445,880 PH 136250 Olari € 1,437,874 € 1,731,590 € 2,014,443 PH 134336 Pacureti € 1,235,360 € 1,487,709 € 1,730,724 PH 130847 Paulesti € 5,489,440 € 6,610,773 € 7,690,635 PH 134390 Plopu € 1,083,999 € 1,305,428 € 1,518,668 PH 134443 Podenii Noi € 2,041,915 € 2,459,019 € 2,860,697 PH 131274 Poiana Campina € 2,707,816 € 3,260,944 € 3,793,615 PH 134559 Poienarii Burchi € 1,582,636 € 1,905,922 € 2,217,252 PH 134648 Posesti € 1,487,595 € 1,791,467 € 2,084,101 PH 134755 Predeal Sarari € 1,015,205 € 1,222,581 € 1,422,288 PH 134853 Provita de Jos € 1,202,932 € 1,448,656 € 1,6 85,292 PH 134899 Provita de Sus € 723,213 € 870,944 € 1,013,212 PH 134942 Puchenii Mari € 3,777,088 € 4,548,637 € 5,291,651 PH 135020 Rafov € 1,528,648 € 1,840,907 € 2,141,617 PH 135128 Salcia € 469,896 € 565,882 € 658,318 PH 135146 Salciile € 1,419,8 24 € 1,709,853 € 1,989,155 PH 135244 Sangeru € 2,301,378 € 2,771,483 € 3,224,201 PH 135164 Scorteni € 2,106,680 € 2,537,014 € 2,951,432 PH 135226 Secaria € 924,827 € 1,113,742 € 1,295,670 PH 135431 Sirna € 1,352,285 € 1,628,518 € 1,894,534 PH 135501 Soimari € 1,159,940 € 1,396,882 € 1,625,061 PH 135547 Sotriile € 1,543,186 € 1,858,415 € 2,161,984 PH 135315 Starchiojd € 1,853,362 € 2,231,950 € 2,596,536 PH 135618 Stefesti € 919,234 € 1,107,007 € 1,287,835 PH 135404 Surani € 715,073 € 861,142 € 1,001 ,808 PH 135654 Talea € 624,678 € 752,281 € 875,165 PH 130892 Targsoru Vechi € 3,401,869 € 4,096,772 € 4,765,975 232 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario PH 135681 Tataru € 470,422 € 566,516 € 659,055 PH 135725 Teisani € 1,674,193 € 2,016,182 € 2,345,523 PH 135789 Telega € 2,006,104 € 2,415,8 93 € 2,810,526 PH 135850 Tinosu € 980,219 € 1,180,449 € 1,373,274 PH 135896 Tomsani € 1,486,834 € 1,790,551 € 2,083,036 PH 136269 Vadu Sapat € 858,096 € 1,033,380 € 1,202,182 PH 136198 Valcanesti € 1,983,310 € 2,388,443 € 2,778,592 PH 135949 Valea Calugareasca € 4,482,246 € 5,397,839 € 6,279,569 PH 136107 Valea Doftanei € 2,778,872 € 3,346,515 € 3,893,164 PH 136134 Varbilau € 2,405,640 € 2,897,043 € 3,370,271 SM 136526 Carei € 18,117,322 € 21,818,165 € 25,382,134 SM 136483 Satu Mare € 77,223,017 € 92,997,437 € 108,188,450 SM 136848 Ardud € 3,230,285 € 3,890,138 € 4,525,588 SM 138039 Livada € 3,724,926 € 4,485,820 € 5,218,573 SM 136599 Negresti € 7,470,241 € 8,996,194 € 10,465,711 SM 136642 Tasnad € 3,895,548 € 4,691,296 € 5,457,613 SM 136713 Acas € 2,123,832 € 2,557,669 € 2,975,461 SM 179873 Agris € 809,073 € 974,343 € 1,133,501 SM 136768 Andrid € 1,133,548 € 1,365,099 € 1,588,086 SM 136802 Apa € 1,028,724 € 1,238,863 € 1,441,230 SM 137103 Barsau € 838,406 € 1,009,668 € 1,174,596 SM 136919 Batarci € 1,451,658 € 1,748,190 € 2,033,754 SM 136964 Beltiug € 1,441,623 € 1,736,105 € 2,019,696 SM 137032 Berveni € 1,693,313 € 2,039,208 € 2,372,310 SM 137069 Bixad € 2,248,596 € 2,707,919 € 3,150,254 SM 137130 Bogdand € 1,311,144 € 1,578,973 € 1,83 6,896 SM 137185 Botiz € 1,922,158 € 2,314,799 € 2,692,919 SM 137229 Calinesti € 2,233,653 € 2,689,924 € 3,129,319 SM 137274 Camarzana € 952,728 € 1,147,343 € 1,334,760 SM 179677 Camin € 702,788 € 846,347 € 984,597 SM 136553 Capleni € 1,169,023 € 1,407 ,821 € 1,637,786 SM 137292 Cauas € 1,160,338 € 1,397,362 € 1,625,619 SM 137363 Cehal € 735,374 € 885,589 € 1,030,249 SM 137407 Certeze € 2,287,672 € 2,754,977 € 3,204,998 SM 179882 Ciumesti € 675,470 € 813,449 € 946,325 SM 137443 Craidorolt € 1,030,36 7 € 1,240,841 € 1,443,530 233 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SM 137504 Crucisor € 939,187 € 1,131,036 € 1,315,789 SM 137540 Culciu € 1,552,279 € 1,869,364 € 2,174,722 SM 137611 Doba € 1,684,525 € 2,028,624 € 2,359,997 SM 137675 Dorolt € 1,609,470 € 1,938,238 € 2,254,846 SM 137728 Foieni € 1,291,729 € 1,555,591 € 1,809,695 SM 137746 Gherta Mica € 1,560,353 € 1,879,087 € 2,186,034 SM 137764 Halmeu € 1,973,614 € 2,376,765 € 2,765,007 SM 137844 Hodod € 1,406,833 € 1,694,208 € 1,970,954 SM 137899 Homoroade € 1,107,239 € 1,333,415 € 1,551 ,227 SM 137960 Lazuri € 1,861,254 € 2,241,455 € 2,607,593 SM 138084 Mediesu Aurit € 3,065,777 € 3,692,027 € 4,295,114 SM 138164 Micula € 1,027,182 € 1,237,005 € 1,439,069 SM 138208 Moftin € 1,720,942 € 2,072,481 € 2,411,018 SM 138280 Odoreu € 2,134,08 3 € 2,570,015 € 2,989,823 SM 138351 Orasu Nou € 2,734,622 € 3,293,226 € 3,831,170 SM 138431 Paulesti € 1,956,712 € 2,356,411 € 2,741,328 SM 138501 Petresti € 1,197,406 € 1,442,002 € 1,677,551 SM 138538 Pir € 583,821 € 703,078 € 817,925 SM 138574 Piscolt € 1,526,673 € 1,838,529 € 2,138,850 SM 138618 Pomi € 816,361 € 983,119 € 1,143,711 SM 180028 Porumbesti € 887,213 € 1,068,444 € 1,242,974 SM 138404 Racsa € 1,430,564 € 1,722,786 € 2,004,201 SM 138770 Sacaseni € 610,996 € 735,805 € 855,998 SM 138663 Sanislau € 1,535,824 € 1,849,548 € 2,151,669 SM 138734 Santau € 886,871 € 1,068,032 € 1,242,494 SM 138805 Sauca € 834,235 € 1,004,645 € 1,168,752 SM 138869 Socond € 1,100,985 € 1,325,884 € 1,542,466 SM 138921 Supur € 1,675,925 € 2,018,268 € 2,347,949 SM 139009 Tarna Mare € 1,357,196 € 1,634,431 € 1,901,414 SM 139143 Tarsolt € 1,566,882 € 1,886,951 € 2,195,181 SM 139054 Terebesti € 811,184 € 976,885 € 1,136,458 SM 139107 Tiream € 996,555 € 1,200,123 € 1,396,161 SM 139170 Turt € 2,862,997 € 3,447,82 4 € 4,011,022 SM 139214 Turulung € 1,951,274 € 2,349,862 € 2,733,709 SM 139250 Urziceni € 688,756 € 829,449 € 964,939 SM 139287 Valea Vinului € 818,349 € 985,514 € 1,146,497 234 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SM 139330 Vama € 1,415,293 € 1,704,396 € 1,982,807 SM 139358 Vetis € 2,745,70 1 € 3,306,568 € 3,846,691 SM 139394 Viile Satu Mare € 1,322,784 € 1,592,990 € 1,853,203 SJ 139704 Zalau € 42,641,803 € 51,352,285 € 59,740,616 SJ 139740 Cehu Silvaniei € 3,361,741 € 4,048,446 € 4,709,755 SJ 139811 Jibou € 5,093,295 € 6,133,708 € 7,135, 641 SJ 139884 Simleul Silvaniei € 7,762,420 € 9,348,057 € 10,875,050 SJ 139937 Agrij € 860,953 € 1,036,821 € 1,206,185 SJ 139982 Almas € 795,807 € 958,367 € 1,114,916 SJ 140084 Babeni € 590,808 € 711,492 € 827,714 SJ 140146 Balan € 1,267,020 € 1,525,8 35 € 1,775,078 SJ 140208 Banisor € 860,192 € 1,035,904 € 1,205,118 SJ 140244 Benesat € 944,531 € 1,137,471 € 1,323,276 SJ 140280 Bobota € 1,224,553 € 1,474,694 € 1,715,583 SJ 140324 Bocsa € 1,105,063 € 1,330,795 € 1,548,178 SJ 180037 Boghis € 774,425 € 932,617 € 1,084,959 SJ 140379 Buciumi € 966,680 € 1,164,144 € 1,354,306 SJ 140440 Camar € 614,298 € 739,781 € 860,623 SJ 140477 Carastelec € 817,447 € 984,428 € 1,145,233 SJ 140501 Chiesd € 1,082,602 € 1,303,746 € 1,516,711 SJ 140547 Cizer € 1,039,9 85 € 1,252,424 € 1,457,006 SJ 140583 Coseiu € 517,571 € 623,296 € 725,110 SJ 140627 Crasna € 5,332,376 € 6,421,625 € 7,470,589 SJ 140672 Creaca € 1,007,640 € 1,213,472 € 1,411,691 SJ 140823 Criseni € 1,680,709 € 2,024,029 € 2,354,651 SJ 140770 Cristolt € 556,087 € 669,680 € 779,071 SJ 140869 Cuzaplac € 846,379 € 1,019,270 € 1,185,767 SJ 140958 Dobrin € 845,127 € 1,017,762 € 1,184,012 SJ 141027 Dragu € 584,888 € 704,364 € 819,421 SJ 141081 Fildu de Jos € 570,419 € 686,939 € 799,150 SJ 141134 Galgau € 906,898 € 1,092,152 € 1,270,553 SJ 141232 Garbou € 805,219 € 969,702 € 1,128,102 SJ 141312 Halmasd € 1,160,607 € 1,397,685 € 1,625,996 SJ 141376 Hereclean € 1,505,931 € 1,813,549 € 2,109,790 SJ 141447 Hida € 1,514,934 € 1,824,391 € 2,122,403 SJ 141535 Horoatu Crasnei € 1,201,855 € 1,447,359 € 1,683,784 235 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SJ 141580 Ileanda € 1,185,556 € 1,427,731 € 1,660,949 SJ 141722 Ip € 1,290,779 € 1,554,448 € 1,808,365 SJ 141786 Letca € 857,362 € 1,032,496 € 1,201,153 SJ 141884 Lozna € 507,279 € 610,902 € 710,6 92 SJ 142006 Maeriste € 1,161,954 € 1,399,307 € 1,627,882 SJ 141946 Marca € 1,333,197 € 1,605,530 € 1,867,792 SJ 142079 Mesesenii De Jos € 2,926,302 € 3,524,061 € 4,099,712 SJ 142122 Mirsid € 1,140,588 € 1,373,577 € 1,597,949 SJ 142177 Napradea € 1,00 6,769 € 1,212,423 € 1,410,471 SJ 142239 Nusfalau € 1,919,296 € 2,311,353 € 2,688,910 SJ 142284 Pericei € 1,774,177 € 2,136,590 € 2,485,599 SJ 142337 Plopis € 1,950,829 € 2,349,327 € 2,733,086 SJ 142373 Poiana Blenchii € 460,093 € 554,076 € 644,584 SJ 142426 Romanasi € 1,006,720 € 1,212,364 € 1,410,402 SJ 142499 Rus € 508,867 € 612,814 € 712,916 SJ 142612 Sag € 1,950,115 € 2,348,466 € 2,732,085 SJ 142550 Salatig € 1,186,888 € 1,429,335 € 1,662,815 SJ 142854 Samsud € 839,330 € 1,010,780 € 1,175,890 SJ 142676 Sanmihaiu Almasului € 639,089 € 769,636 € 895,355 SJ 142881 Sarmasag € 3,504,667 € 4,220,569 € 4,909,993 SJ 179695 Simisna € 496,823 € 598,309 € 696,043 SJ 142710 Somes Odorhei € 1,609,201 € 1,937,914 € 2,254,470 SJ 142774 Surduc € 1,134,980 € 1,366,823 € 1,590,092 SJ 179631 Treznea € 731,855 € 881,352 € 1,025,320 SJ 142952 Valcaul de Jos € 1,336,413 € 1,609,404 € 1,872,298 SJ 143021 Varsolt € 1,839,326 € 2,215,047 € 2,576,872 SJ 143067 Zalha € 430,129 € 517,992 € 602,605 SJ 143147 Zimbor € 675,866 € 813,926 € 946,879 SB 143619 Medias € 46,563,687 € 56,075,296 € 65,235,125 SB 143450 Sibiu € 168,351,814 € 202,741,200 € 235,858,718 SB 143682 Agnita € 6,182,162 € 7,444,998 € 8,661,129 SB 144054 Avrig € 7,814,945 € 9,411,312 € 10,948,637 SB 143735 Cisnadie € 11,580,316 € 13,945,839 € 16,223,874 SB 143771 Copsa Mica € 3,491,501 € 4,204,713 € 4,891,548 SB 143806 Dumbraveni € 4,362,799 € 5,253,992 € 6,112,225 SB 144928 Miercurea Sibiului € 3,544,044 € 4,267,989 € 4,965,159 236 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SB 143851 Ocna Sibiului € 3,163,993 € 3,810,305 € 4,432,714 SB 145499 Saliste € 4,997,854 € 6,018,771 € 7,001,929 SB 145827 Talmaciu € 4,566,032 € 5,498,739 € 6,396,951 SB 146012 Alma € 1,042,585 € 1,255,555 € 1,460,648 SB 143888 Altina € 1,232,104 € 1,483,788 € 1,72 6,162 SB 143922 Apoldu de Jos € 968,908 € 1,166,828 € 1,357,427 SB 143959 Arpasu de Jos € 1,849,403 € 2,227,183 € 2,590,990 SB 143995 Atel € 948,157 € 1,141,838 € 1,328,355 SB 144116 Axente Sever € 1,725,569 € 2,078,052 € 2,417,500 SB 144152 Bazna € 2 ,094,313 € 2,522,120 € 2,934,105 SB 144198 Biertan € 1,801,060 € 2,168,965 € 2,523,262 SB 144232 Birghis € 1,168,037 € 1,406,633 € 1,636,404 SB 144303 Blajel € 1,901,959 € 2,290,474 € 2,664,620 SB 146021 Boita € 1,173,804 € 1,413,578 € 1,644,484 SB 144376 Bradeni € 874,919 € 1,053,639 € 1,225,750 SB 144349 Brateiu € 1,520,253 € 1,830,797 € 2,129,856 SB 144410 Bruiu € 903,695 € 1,088,293 € 1,266,065 SB 144456 Chirpar € 1,138,444 € 1,370,995 € 1,594,945 SB 144508 Cirta € 962,576 € 1,159,202 € 1,348,5 56 SB 144535 Cirtisoara € 1,283,873 € 1,546,131 € 1,798,689 SB 143487 Cristian € 3,130,222 € 3,769,635 € 4,385,400 SB 144553 Dirlos € 1,597,205 € 1,923,467 € 2,237,663 SB 144599 Gura Riului € 2,827,720 € 3,405,342 € 3,961,600 SB 144615 Hoghilag € 1,09 5,073 € 1,318,765 € 1,534,183 SB 144651 Iacobeni € 1,416,142 € 1,705,419 € 1,983,997 SB 144713 Jina € 4,422,212 € 5,325,541 € 6,195,462 SB 144731 Laslea € 1,357,671 € 1,635,004 € 1,902,080 SB 144795 Loamnes € 2,020,026 € 2,432,659 € 2,830,031 SB 144866 Ludos € 643,915 € 775,448 € 902,116 SB 144893 Marpod € 731,857 € 881,354 € 1,025,322 SB 144964 Merghindeal € 835,653 € 1,006,353 € 1,170,739 SB 144991 Micasasa € 1,284,999 € 1,547,487 € 1,800,267 SB 145042 Mihaileni € 699,070 € 841,870 € 979,388 SB 145104 Mosna € 1,589,346 € 1,914,003 € 2,226,653 SB 145140 Nocrich € 1,728,180 € 2,081,197 € 2,421,158 SB 145202 Orlat € 2,043,935 € 2,461,451 € 2,863,526 237 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SB 145220 Pauca € 1,893,762 € 2,280,602 € 2,653,136 SB 145275 Poiana Sibiului € 1,472,207 € 1,772 ,937 € 2,062,544 SB 143502 Poplaca € 1,347,414 € 1,622,652 € 1,887,710 SB 145293 Porumbacu de Jos € 2,298,826 € 2,768,409 € 3,220,626 SB 145355 Racovita € 1,610,465 € 1,939,436 € 2,256,240 SB 143520 Rasinari € 2,299,198 € 2,768,858 € 3,221,147 SB 145382 Riu Sadului € 537,402 € 647,178 € 752,894 SB 145408 Rosia € 2,467,989 € 2,972,127 € 3,457,621 SB 145471 Sadu € 2,029,473 € 2,444,035 € 2,843,266 SB 145667 Seica Mare € 2,033,700 € 2,449,126 € 2,849,188 SB 145738 Seica Mica € 1,186,622 € 1,429,014 € 1,662,442 SB 143557 Selimbar € 11,828,735 € 14,245,003 € 16,571,906 SB 145603 Slimnic € 1,693,246 € 2,039,126 € 2,372,215 SB 145765 Sura Mare € 2,715,826 € 3,270,590 € 3,804,837 SB 145792 Sura Mica € 3,064,046 € 3,689,942 € 4,292,689 SB 145907 Tilisca € 1,087,877 € 1,310,099 € 1,524,102 SB 143646 Tirnava € 1,215,658 € 1,463,981 € 1,703,121 SB 145934 Turnu Rosu € 1,497,193 € 1,803,026 € 2,097,548 SB 145961 Valea Viilor € 1,037,340 € 1,249,239 € 1,453,300 SB 145998 Vurpar € 1,148,531 € 1,383,142 € 1,609,077 Cimpulung SV 146502 Moldovenesc € 13,643,775 € 16,430,802 € 19,114,753 SV 146539 Falticeni € 10,554,098 € 12,709,993 € 14,786,154 SV 146628 Radauti € 19,309,642 € 23,254,042 € 27,052,560 SV 146263 Suceava € 140,498,174 € 169,197,871 € 196,836,1 29 SV 146744 Vatra Dornei € 18,315,054 € 22,056,287 € 25,659,154 SV 147358 Brosteni € 1,964,987 € 2,366,376 € 2,752,921 SV 147633 Cajvana € 2,466,135 € 2,969,895 € 3,455,024 SV 148006 Dolhasca € 2,910,977 € 3,505,605 € 4,078,241 SV 148612 Frasin € 2,7 60,101 € 3,323,909 € 3,866,866 SV 146584 Gura Humorului € 14,230,983 € 17,137,959 € 19,937,423 SV 149227 Liteni € 2,444,395 € 2,943,713 € 3,424,565 SV 146931 Milisauti € 2,643,814 € 3,183,868 € 3,703,949 SV 146370 Salcea € 3,783,127 € 4,555,910 € 5,300 ,112 SV 146655 Siret € 5,802,861 € 6,988,217 € 8,129,733 SV 146708 Solca € 1,265,288 € 1,523,750 € 1,772,652 238 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SV 151095 Vicovu de Sus € 3,782,629 € 4,555,310 € 5,299,415 SV 146799 Adincata € 894,474 € 1,077,189 € 1,253,147 SV 146860 Arbore € 2,172,119 € 2,615,820 € 3,043,111 SV 146904 Baia € 1,585,494 € 1,909,364 € 2,221,256 SV 151530 Balaceana € 537,303 € 647,059 € 752,755 SV 146995 Balcauti € 983,847 € 1,184,819 € 1,378,358 SV 151576 Berchisesti € 1,367,458 € 1,646,790 € 1,915,791 SV 147036 Bilca € 1,247,482 € 1,502,306 € 1,747,706 SV 147054 Bogdanesti € 1,272,426 € 1,532,346 € 1,782,652 SV 147072 Boroaia € 1,260,508 € 1,517,993 € 1,765,956 SV 147134 Bosanci € 2,274,207 € 2,738,761 € 3,186,135 SV 147161 Botosana € 960,216 € 1,156,361 € 1,345,2 51 SV 147205 Breaza € 904,775 € 1,089,594 € 1,267,578 SV 147241 Brodina € 2,509,891 € 3,022,589 € 3,516,325 SV 147465 Bunesti € 635,367 € 765,154 € 890,141 SV 151521 Burla € 685,596 € 825,643 € 960,511 SV 147526 Cacica € 2,556,545 € 3,078,772 € 3,581, 686 SV 147580 Calafindesti € 965,532 € 1,162,762 € 1,352,697 SV 151503 Capu Cimpului € 1,386,500 € 1,669,722 € 1,942,469 SV 151451 Ciocanesti € 762,901 € 918,740 € 1,068,815 SV 151567 Ciprian Porumbescu € 1,737,738 € 2,092,708 € 2,434,549 SV 147713 Cirlibaba € 1,044,001 € 1,257,260 € 1,462,632 SV 151433 Comanesti € 734,519 € 884,560 € 1,029,052 SV 147786 Cornu Luncii € 3,676,638 € 4,427,669 € 5,150,923 SV 151497 Cosna € 3,153,384 € 3,797,528 € 4,417,850 SV 147884 Crucea € 977,797 € 1,177,532 € 1,36 9,881 SV 147937 Darmanesti € 2,029,377 € 2,443,920 € 2,843,131 SV 148097 Dolhesti € 695,396 € 837,445 € 974,241 SV 148131 Dorna Arini € 951,166 € 1,145,462 € 1,332,571 SV 148202 Dorna Candreni € 4,027,439 € 4,850,127 € 5,642,389 SV 148293 Dornesti € 1 ,200,417 € 1,445,627 € 1,681,769 SV 148328 Dragoiesti € 1,345,244 € 1,620,038 € 1,884,670 SV 148382 Draguseni € 1,184,025 € 1,425,886 € 1,658,803 SV 148426 Dumbraveni € 2,635,389 € 3,173,723 € 3,692,146 SV 151488 Fintina Mare € 864,120 € 1,040,634 € 1,210,621 SV 148453 Fintinele € 1,185,659 € 1,427,854 € 1,661,093 239 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SV 148514 Forasti € 1,778,510 € 2,141,808 € 2,491,670 SV 148667 Fratautii Noi € 1,907,878 € 2,297,603 € 2,672,913 SV 148694 Fratautii Vechi € 1,887,375 € 2,272,911 € 2,644,188 SV 148729 Frumosu € 1,296,614 € 1,561,474 € 1,816,539 SV 148765 Fundu Moldovei € 1,545,149 € 1,860,779 € 2,164,734 SV 148872 Galanesti € 823,483 € 991,696 € 1,153,688 SV 148916 Gramesti € 740,553 € 891,827 € 1,037,506 SV 148970 Granicesti € 2,170,479 € 2,613,845 € 3,040,813 SV 151512 Hintesti € 978,046 € 1,177,833 € 1,370,230 SV 151549 Hirtop € 828,416 € 997,637 € 1,160,600 SV 149101 Horodnic de Jos € 1,026,620 € 1,236,329 € 1,438,282 SV 151479 Horodnic de Sus € 1,599,804 € 1,926,598 € 2,241,305 SV 149049 Horodniceni € 1,466,018 € 1,765,483 € 2,053,872 SV 149138 Iacobeni € 1,334,147 € 1,606,674 € 1,869,123 SV 151442 Iaslovat € 1,294,639 € 1,559,096 € 1,813,772 SV 147660 Ilisesti € 1,237,119 € 1,489,826 € 1,733,187 SV 146281 Ipotesti € 2,199,417 € 2,648,694 € 3,081,355 SV 149183 Izvoarele Sucevei € 1,003,622 € 1,208,633 € 1,406,062 SV 149316 Malini € 2,073,850 € 2,497,477 € 2,905,437 Manastirea SV 149370 Humorului € 1,324,375 € 1,594,906 € 1,855,432 SV 149290 Marginea € 3,966,491 € 4,776,730 € 5,557,003 SV 146325 Mitocul Dragomirnei € 1,186,176 € 1,428,478 € 1,661,818 SV 149414 Moara € 2,233,536 € 2,689,782 € 3,129,155 SV 149502 Moldova Sulita € 824,266 € 992,639 € 1,154,786 SV 149539 Moldovita € 2,009,523 € 2,420,010 € 2,815,316 SV 149584 Musenita € 693,760 € 835,475 € 971,949 SV 149655 Ostra € 1,523,827 € 1,835,101 € 2,134,862 SV 149753 Paltinoasa € 1,895,936 € 2,283,221 € 2,656,182 SV 149682 Panaci € 833,241 € 1,003,448 € 1,167,360 SV 149833 Patrauti € 1,453,311 € 1,750,180 € 2,036,070 SV 149780 Pirtestii de Jos € 1,185,046 € 1,427,116 € 1,660,234 SV 149851 Poiana Stampei € 2,913,572 € 3,508,730 € 4,081,877 SV 151585 Poieni-Solca € 878,518 € 1,057,974 € 1,230,793 SV 149931 Pojorita € 1,956,808 € 2,356,527 € 2,741,462 SV 149968 Preutesti € 1 ,895,549 € 2,282,754 € 2,655,639 240 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario SV 150043 Putna € 1,463,987 € 1,763,037 € 2,051,027 SV 150070 Radaseni € 1,130,349 € 1,361,247 € 1,583,604 SV 150114 Risca € 1,169,301 € 1,408,155 € 1,638,175 SV 150178 Sadova € 1,077,993 € 1,298,195 € 1,510,254 SV 150445 Saru Dornei € 2,032,490 € 2,447,668 € 2,847,492 SV 150196 Satu Mare € 3,681,181 € 4,433,139 € 5,157,286 SV 146432 Scheia € 5,856,815 € 7,053,193 € 8,205,323 SV 151460 Serbauti € 871,242 € 1,049,211 € 1,220,598 SV 150221 Siminicea € 878,035 € 1,057, 391 € 1,230,115 SV 150258 Slatina € 1,177,310 € 1,417,800 € 1,649,396 SV 150294 Straja € 1,877,747 € 2,261,317 € 2,630,700 SV 150310 Stroiesti € 889,446 € 1,071,134 € 1,246,102 SV 150356 Stulpicani € 1,419,571 € 1,709,548 € 1,988,800 SV 150418 Sucevita € 1,376,551 € 1,657,741 € 1,928,530 SV 150524 Todiresti € 1,915,833 € 2,307,182 € 2,684,057 SV 150588 Udesti € 3,196,187 € 3,849,076 € 4,477,817 SV 150702 Ulma € 683,730 € 823,396 € 957,897 SV 150766 Vadu Moldovei € 1,147,594 € 1,382,014 € 1,607,764 SV 150891 Valea Moldovei € 790,329 € 951,770 € 1,107,241 SV 150935 Vama € 1,844,100 € 2,220,796 € 2,583,560 SV 150980 Vatra Moldovitei € 2,107,578 € 2,538,094 € 2,952,689 SV 151022 Veresti € 1,963,724 € 2,364,856 € 2,751,152 SV 151077 Vicovu de Jos € 1,728,728 € 2,081,857 € 2,421,925 SV 151558 Voitinel € 1,759,840 € 2,119,325 € 2,465,514 SV 151120 Volovat € 1,840,077 € 2,215,951 € 2,577,924 SV 151157 Vulturesti € 879,640 € 1,059,325 € 1,232,364 SV 151246 Zamostea € 796,911 € 959,696 € 1,116,461 SV 151344 Zvoristea € 1,425,890 € 1,717,158 € 1,997,654 TR 151790 Alexandria € 39,979,327 € 48,145,943 € 56,010,522 TR 151870 Rosiori De Vede € 16,536,359 € 19,914,257 € 23,167,226 TR 151683 Turnu Magurele € 14,105,096 € 16,986,357 € 19,761,057 TR 151905 Videle € 18,726,421 € 22,551,685 € 26,235,475 TR 151978 Zimnicea € 9,143,654 € 11,011,437 € 12,810,142 TR 152038 Babaita € 1,132,052 € 1,363,298 € 1,585,991 TR 151996 Balaci € 859,716 € 1,035,332 € 1,204,452 TR 155083 Beciu € 482,326 € 580,851 € 675,7 33 241 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TR 155092 Beuca € 965,639 € 1,162,891 € 1,352,847 TR 152083 Blejesti € 1,064,765 € 1,282,266 € 1,491,722 TR 152127 Bogdana € 706,601 € 850,939 € 989,939 TR 152172 Botoroaga € 1,765,311 € 2,125,913 € 2,473,178 TR 152234 Bragadiru € 1,588,223 € 1,912 ,651 € 2,225,080 TR 152252 Branceni € 1,112,231 € 1,339,427 € 1,558,221 TR 152270 Bujoreni € 434,585 € 523,358 € 608,847 TR 152314 Bujoru € 475,170 € 572,233 € 665,707 TR 152332 Buzescu € 1,171,585 € 1,410,905 € 1,641,375 TR 152350 Calinesti € 1,180,4 83 € 1,421,621 € 1,653,842 TR 152412 Calmatuiu € 892,129 € 1,074,365 € 1,249,861 TR 152467 Calmatuiu de Sus € 598,147 € 720,332 € 837,997 TR 152500 Cervenia € 815,340 € 981,891 € 1,142,281 TR 152528 Ciolanesti € 948,066 € 1,141,728 € 1,328,228 TR 151709 Ciuperceni € 501,690 € 604,170 € 702,861 TR 152564 Contesti € 1,066,192 € 1,283,984 € 1,493,721 TR 152582 Cosmesti € 2,297,336 € 2,766,615 € 3,218,538 TR 152617 Crangeni € 788,389 € 949,435 € 1,104,523 TR 152662 Crangu € 697,472 € 839,945 € 977,149 TR 151932 Crevenicu € 606,589 € 730,498 € 849,824 TR 152724 Didesti € 657,442 € 791,738 € 921,068 TR 152760 Dobrotesti € 1,875,338 € 2,258,415 € 2,627,324 TR 155109 Dracea € 767,066 € 923,755 € 1,074,649 TR 152797 Dracsenei € 665,741 € 801,732 € 932,6 94 TR 152868 Draganesti de Vede € 931,496 € 1,121,774 € 1,305,014 TR 152902 Draganesti Vlasca € 1,311,705 € 1,579,648 € 1,837,682 TR 155118 Fantanele € 774,520 € 932,732 € 1,085,093 TR 155127 Frasinet € 1,150,731 € 1,385,792 € 1,612,159 TR 152993 Frumoasa € 643,487 € 774,932 € 901,517 TR 152948 Furculesti € 883,494 € 1,063,966 € 1,237,763 TR 153026 Galateni € 1,194,803 € 1,438,867 € 1,673,904 TR 153062 Gratia € 1,923,332 € 2,316,213 € 2,694,563 TR 151736 Islaz € 1,565,706 € 1,885,534 € 2,193,534 TR 153106 Izvoarele € 788,036 € 949,008 € 1,104,028 TR 153124 Lisa € 1,194,812 € 1,438,877 € 1,673,916 TR 151763 Lita € 1,089,623 € 1,312,201 € 1,526,548 242 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TR 153151 Lunca € 778,311 € 937,297 € 1,090,403 TR 153240 Magura € 2,195,585 € 2,644,079 € 3,075,98 6 TR 153277 Maldaieni € 1,347,088 € 1,622,259 € 1,887,253 TR 153339 Marzanesti € 1,231,562 € 1,483,134 € 1,725,402 TR 153204 Mavrodin € 796,038 € 958,646 € 1,115,239 TR 153295 Mereni € 1,003,635 € 1,208,649 € 1,406,080 TR 153384 Mosteni € 853,965 € 1,028,406 € 1,196,394 TR 151816 Nanov € 1,814,875 € 2,185,602 € 2,542,617 TR 153400 Nasturelu € 790,412 € 951,870 € 1,107,357 TR 153437 Necsesti € 446,163 € 537,302 € 625,069 TR 154996 Nenciulesti € 776,435 € 935,038 € 1,087,775 TR 153473 Olteni € 1,926 ,758 € 2,320,339 € 2,699,363 TR 153507 Orbeasca € 1,795,203 € 2,161,911 € 2,515,056 TR 153543 Peretu € 1,795,336 € 2,162,072 € 2,515,243 TR 153561 Piatra € 2,043,719 € 2,461,191 € 2,863,224 TR 153589 Pietrosani € 1,116,303 € 1,344,331 € 1,563,926 TR 153623 Plopii Slavitesti € 895,331 € 1,078,221 € 1,254,347 TR 153605 Plosca € 1,840,989 € 2,217,049 € 2,579,201 TR 153696 Poeni € 1,570,608 € 1,891,437 € 2,200,401 TR 151834 Poroschia € 2,686,907 € 3,235,764 € 3,764,322 TR 155136 Purani € 468,452 € 564, 143 € 656,295 TR 153829 Putineiu € 702,834 € 846,403 € 984,662 TR 153865 Radoiesti € 722,872 € 870,534 € 1,012,735 TR 153909 Rasmiresti € 391,818 € 471,855 € 548,931 TR 153972 Saceni € 514,241 € 619,286 € 720,445 TR 155145 Saelele € 1,311,936 € 1,579, 926 € 1,838,005 TR 153936 Salcia € 1,160,007 € 1,396,963 € 1,625,155 TR 154308 Sarbeni € 521,801 € 628,390 € 731,037 TR 154013 Scrioastea € 1,005,236 € 1,210,576 € 1,408,322 TR 154068 Scurtu Mare € 464,793 € 559,736 € 651,169 TR 154139 Seaca € 742,560 € 894,244 € 1,040,318 TR 154184 Segarcea Vale € 755,931 € 910,346 € 1,059,050 TR 154166 Sfintesti € 485,273 € 584,400 € 679,861 TR 154228 Silistea € 808,909 € 974,146 € 1,133,271 TR 154282 Silistea Noua € 718,744 € 865,562 € 1,006,951 TR 154344 Slobozia Mandra € 744,157 € 896,167 € 1,042,555 243 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TR 154380 Smardioasa € 882,336 € 1,062,571 € 1,236,141 TR 154415 Stejaru € 767,391 € 924,147 € 1,075,105 TR 154497 Storobaneasa € 1,110,907 € 1,337,833 € 1,556,366 TR 154460 Suhaia € 1,142,685 € 1,376,103 € 1,600,888 TR 154521 Talpa € 1,087,001 € 1,309,043 € 1,522,874 TR 154585 Tatarastii de Jos € 1,077,680 € 1,297,819 € 1,509,816 TR 154665 Tatarastii de Sus € 759,642 € 914,815 € 1,064,249 TR 154834 Tiganesti € 1,912,573 € 2,303,256 € 2,679,490 TR 154736 Traian € 611,062 € 735,885 € 856,090 TR 154754 Trivale Mosteni € 945,366 € 1,138,477 € 1,324,446 TR 154790 Troianu € 778,529 € 937,560 € 1,090,709 TR 155154 Uda Clocociov € 638,360 € 768,759 € 894,335 TR 154932 Vartoape € 843,943 € 1,016,336 € 1,182,353 TR 154852 Vedea € 1,340,093 € 1,613,835 € 1,877,452 TR 154914 Viisoara € 636,574 € 766,608 € 891,832 TR 153776 Vitanesti € 872,317 € 1,050,506 € 1,222,105 TR 154978 Zambreasca € 746,713 € 899,244 € 1,046,135 TM 155350 Lugoj € 30,970,305 € 37,296,638 € 43,388,997 TM 155243 Timisoara € 418,439,594 € 503,914,651 € 586,228,470 TM 155403 Buzias € 5,975,456 € 7,196,068 € 8,371,536 TM 156357 Ciacova € 3,352,924 € 4,037,829 € 4,697,404 TM 155458 Deta € 3,992,830 € 4,808,449 € 5,593,903 TM 156801 Faget € 4,525,066 € 5,449,406 € 6,339,559 TM 157086 Gataia € 4,631,959 € 5,578,134 € 6,489,315 TM 155494 Jimbolia € 8,322,747 € 10,022,843 € 11,660,061 TM 158314 Recas € 6,288,543 € 7,573,110 € 8,810,168 TM 155528 Sanicolau Mare € 16,367,310 € 19,710,677 € 22, 930,391 TM 155546 Balint € 1,116,766 € 1,344,889 € 1,564,575 TM 155591 Banloc € 2,571,871 € 3,097,230 € 3,603,158 TM 155662 Bara € 867,291 € 1,044,454 € 1,215,064 TM 155724 Beba Veche € 1,747,450 € 2,104,403 € 2,448,154 TM 155760 Becicherecul Mic € 3,026,882 € 3,645,186 € 4,240,623 TM 155797 Belint € 2,079,829 € 2,504,677 € 2,913,813 TM 155840 Bethausen € 1,757,154 € 2,116,090 € 2,461,750 TM 155911 Biled € 2,387,100 € 2,874,715 € 3,344,296 TM 159366 Birda € 2,047,162 € 2,465,338 € 2,868,048 244 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TM 155957 Birna € 1,725,622 € 2,078,116 € 2,417,574 TM 156035 Bogda € 725,868 € 874,142 € 1,016,932 TM 156106 Boldur € 2,405,411 € 2,896,766 € 3,369,949 TM 156151 Brestovat € 591,699 € 712,566 € 828,962 TM 159516 Bucovat € 1,536,162 € 1,849,955 € 2,152,143 TM 156213 Carpinis € 2,904,576 € 3,497,897 € 4,069,274 TM 156259 Cenad € 2,664,427 € 3,208,692 € 3,732,828 TM 156277 Cenei € 1,736,480 € 2,091,193 € 2,432,786 TM 159375 Checea € 1,529,259 € 1,841,642 € 2,142,472 TM 156311 Cheveresu Mare € 2,334,285 € 2 ,811,111 € 3,270,303 TM 156437 Comlosu Mare € 3,671,113 € 4,421,014 € 5,143,181 TM 156473 Costeiu € 2,282,161 € 2,748,340 € 3,197,277 TM 156534 Criciova € 917,374 € 1,104,767 € 1,285,229 TM 156589 Curtea € 911,340 € 1,097,500 € 1,276,776 TM 156623 Darova € 2,067,260 € 2,489,541 € 2,896,204 TM 156669 Denta € 1,979,871 € 2,384,301 € 2,773,773 TM 159384 Dudestii Noi € 3,532,760 € 4,254,400 € 4,949,351 TM 156712 Dudestii Vechi € 2,855,350 € 3,438,615 € 4,000,309 TM 156767 Dumbrava € 1,414,281 € 1,703,1 77 € 1,981,389 TM 155261 Dumbravita € 8,613,969 € 10,373,552 € 12,068,059 TM 156927 Fardea € 1,340,252 € 1,614,026 € 1,877,676 TM 159393 Fibis € 1,135,251 € 1,367,150 € 1,590,472 TM 157004 Foieni € 1,237,296 € 1,490,040 € 1,733,436 TM 157031 Gavojdia € 1,875,132 € 2,258,167 € 2,627,035 TM 159400 Ghilad € 2,044,311 € 2,461,905 € 2,864,054 TM 155289 Ghiroda € 12,084,950 € 14,553,554 € 16,930,859 TM 157193 Ghizela € 898,531 € 1,082,075 € 1,258,830 TM 157246 Giarmata € 5,367,426 € 6,463,835 € 7,519,695 TM 157273 Giera € 1,299,348 € 1,564,767 € 1,820,370 TM 155314 Giroc € 12,656,320 € 15,241,639 € 17,731,341 TM 157317 Giulvaz € 2,038,845 € 2,455,322 € 2,856,396 TM 159419 Gottlob € 1,676,022 € 2,018,385 € 2,348,085 TM 159428 Iecea Mare € 1,765,901 € 2,126,623 € 2,474,004 TM 157362 Jamu Mare € 2,735,330 € 3,294,079 € 3,832,163 TM 157424 Jebel € 2,950,594 € 3,553,315 € 4,133,744 TM 157451 Lenauheim € 3,514,023 € 4,231,835 € 4,923,100 245 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TM 157497 Liebling € 2,289,444 € 2,757,111 € 3,207,481 TM 159491 Livezile € 1,366,506 € 1,645,644 € 1,914,457 TM 157530 Lovrin € 3,238,361 € 3,899,864 € 4,536,902 TM 157736 Manastur € 1,297,964 € 1,563,101 € 1,818,431 TM 157585 Margina € 1,661,736 € 2,001,180 € 2,328,070 TM 157683 Masloc € 1,518,414 € 1,828,582 € 2,127,279 TM 157781 Moravita € 2,462,257 € 2,965,224 € 3,449,590 TM 157834 Mosnita Noua € 7,716,254 € 9,292,461 € 10,810,372 TM 157898 Nadrag € 1,574,724 € 1,896,394 € 2,206,168 TM 157923 Nitchidorf € 1,346,962 € 1,622,107 € 1,887,076 TM 157969 Ohaba Lunga € 1,214,818 € 1,462,970 € 1,701,944 TM 158010 Ortisoara € 4,005,750 € 4,824,008 € 5,612,004 TM 159525 Otelec € 1,246,874 € 1,501,575 € 1,746,855 TM 159446 Padureni € 1,320,106 € 1,589,765 € 1,849,451 TM 159437 Parta € 3,318,337 € 3,996,177 € 4,648, 947 TM 158065 Peciu Nou € 4,528,323 € 5,453,328 € 6,344,123 TM 158109 Periam € 4,006,345 € 4,824,725 € 5,612,838 TM 159507 Pesac € 1,592,258 € 1,917,510 € 2,230,733 TM 158136 Pietroasa € 1,746,840 € 2,103,669 € 2,447,301 TM 158181 Pischia € 2,195,550 € 2,644,037 € 3,075,938 TM 158243 Racovita € 3,073,948 € 3,701,866 € 4,306,561 TM 158396 Remetea Mare € 1,939,896 € 2,336,161 € 2,717,770 TM 158564 Sacalaz € 7,613,027 € 9,168,147 € 10,665,752 TM 158449 Sacosu Turcesc € 1,686,665 € 2,031,201 € 2,362,99 6 TM 158779 Sag € 2,346,615 € 2,825,960 € 3,287,577 TM 158653 Sanandrei € 4,168,911 € 5,020,499 € 5,840,591 TM 159464 Sandra € 2,321,520 € 2,795,739 € 3,252,419 TM 158699 Sanmihaiu Roman € 3,225,320 € 3,884,159 € 4,518,632 TM 159455 Saravale € 1,358,4 76 € 1,635,973 € 1,903,207 TM 158528 Satchinez € 3,300,280 € 3,974,432 € 4,623,650 TM 158608 Secas € 447,169 € 538,513 € 626,478 TM 158733 Sinpetru Mare € 2,660,292 € 3,203,712 € 3,727,034 TM 158804 Stiuca € 1,798,534 € 2,165,922 € 2,519,722 TM 158859 Teremia Mare € 2,720,188 € 3,275,844 € 3,810,949 TM 158895 Tomesti € 1,001,310 € 1,205,849 € 1,402,823 TM 159473 Tomnatic € 1,491,864 € 1,796,608 € 2,090,082 246 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TM 158966 Topolovatu Mare € 1,588,469 € 1,912,947 € 2,225,425 TM 159035 Tormac € 1,608,799 € 1,937,430 € 2,253,906 TM 159071 Traian Vuia € 1,593,447 € 1,918,942 € 2,232,399 TM 159142 Uivar € 1,623,860 € 1,955,567 € 2,275,006 TM 159259 V.V.Delamarina € 2,125,966 € 2,560,239 € 2,978,451 TM 159482 Valcani € 1,345,793 € 1,620,700 € 1,885,439 TM 159213 Varias € 2,810,994 € 3,385,198 € 3,938,166 TM 159339 Voiteg € 1,949,414 € 2,347,623 € 2,731,104 TL 159614 Tulcea € 62,057,846 € 74,734,461 € 86,942,241 TL 159650 Babadag € 6,224,822 € 7,496,372 € 8,720,895 TL 159687 Isaccea € 5,734,252 € 6,905,59 3 € 8,033,613 TL 159730 Macin € 5,014,306 € 6,038,583 € 7,024,978 TL 159767 Sulina € 3,395,006 € 4,088,508 € 4,756,360 TL 159785 Baia € 3,278,751 € 3,948,505 € 4,593,488 TL 159847 Beidaud € 1,226,947 € 1,477,577 € 1,718,937 TL 161552 Bestepe € 1,255,5 84 € 1,512,064 € 1,759,057 TL 159883 C.A.Rosetti € 404,527 € 487,160 € 566,737 TL 159945 Carcaliu € 1,347,107 € 1,622,281 € 1,887,279 TL 159963 Casimcea € 3,571,696 € 4,301,289 € 5,003,899 TL 160092 Ceamurlia de Jos € 1,256,677 € 1,513,379 € 1,760,588 TL 160047 Ceatalchioi € 380,483 € 458,204 € 533,051 TL 160127 Cerna € 1,971,564 € 2,374,297 € 2,762,135 TL 160172 Chilia Veche € 1,409,390 € 1,697,287 € 1,974,537 TL 160225 Ciucurova € 936,831 € 1,128,199 € 1,312,489 TL 160261 Crisan € 1,282,802 € 1,5 44,841 € 1,797,189 TL 160305 Daeni € 1,506,401 € 1,814,115 € 2,110,449 TL 160323 Dorobantu € 896,796 € 1,079,985 € 1,256,400 TL 160387 Frecatei € 1,751,470 € 2,109,244 € 2,453,786 TL 160430 Greci € 1,813,449 € 2,183,884 € 2,540,619 TL 160458 Grindu € 891,010 € 1,073,018 € 1,248,294 TL 160476 Hamcearca € 769,922 € 927,195 € 1,078,651 TL 160528 Horia € 1,484,271 € 1,787,464 € 2,079,444 TL 161525 I.C.Bratianu € 881,544 € 1,061,618 € 1,235,032 TL 160564 Izvoarele € 1,118,267 € 1,346,697 € 1,566,678 TL 160617 Jijila € 1,945,805 € 2,343,276 € 2,726,047 TL 160644 Jurilovca € 2,178,274 € 2,623,232 € 3,051,734 247 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario TL 160680 Luncavita € 2,516,390 € 3,030,415 € 3,525,429 TL 160877 M.Kogalniceanu € 2,767,807 € 3,333,190 € 3,877,662 TL 160724 Mahmudia € 2,746,8 28 € 3,307,926 € 3,848,271 TL 160779 Maliuc € 818,519 € 985,719 € 1,146,735 TL 160831 Mihai Bravu € 1,268,100 € 1,527,137 € 1,776,592 TL 160911 Murighiol € 2,308,969 € 2,780,624 € 3,234,836 TL 160993 Nalbant € 1,761,392 € 2,121,194 € 2,467,688 TL 161035 Niculitel € 2,101,904 € 2,531,262 € 2,944,741 TL 161053 Nufaru € 1,431,787 € 1,724,260 € 2,005,916 TL 161106 Ostrov € 871,391 € 1,049,390 € 1,220,807 TL 161133 Pardina € 739,178 € 890,171 € 1,035,579 TL 161151 Peceneaga € 1,295,377 € 1,559,984 € 1,8 14,806 TL 161179 Sarichioi € 3,771,251 € 4,541,608 € 5,283,474 TL 161231 Sf.Gheorghe € 777,922 € 936,829 € 1,089,859 TL 161259 Slava Cercheza € 1,029,552 € 1,239,860 € 1,442,390 TL 161286 Smardan € 1,237,106 € 1,489,811 € 1,733,170 TL 161302 Somova € 1,926,682 € 2,320,247 € 2,699,256 TL 161348 Stejaru € 1,445,667 € 1,740,975 € 2,025,361 TL 161384 Topolog € 2,109,068 € 2,539,889 € 2,954,777 TL 161464 Turcoaia € 1,214,878 € 1,463,042 € 1,702,028 TL 161543 Vacareni € 1,648,058 € 1,984,709 € 2,308,908 TL 161482 Valea Nucarilor € 2,103,237 € 2,532,867 € 2,946,607 TL 161561 Valea Teilor € 652,777 € 786,121 € 914,533 VS 161794 Barlad € 25,614,379 € 30,846,652 € 35,885,414 VS 161829 Husi € 12,035,891 € 14,494,474 € 16,862,128 VS 161945 Vaslui € 37,605, 672 € 45,287,418 € 52,685,061 VS 164981 Murgeni € 1,546,145 € 1,861,977 € 2,166,129 VS 161856 Negresti € 6,252,909 € 7,530,197 € 8,760,245 VS 162014 Albesti € 869,600 € 1,047,234 € 1,218,298 VS 162069 Alexandru Vlahuta € 1,898,297 € 2,286,063 € 2,659,4 89 VS 162149 Arsura € 637,685 € 767,945 € 893,388 VS 162327 Bacani € 938,768 € 1,130,531 € 1,315,202 VS 162381 Bacesti € 1,121,549 € 1,350,649 € 1,571,276 VS 162452 Balteni € 535,478 € 644,861 € 750,198 VS 162194 Banca € 1,327,087 € 1,598,173 € 1,859, 232 VS 162498 Berezeni € 1,360,092 € 1,637,919 € 1,905,471 248 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VS 162559 Blagesti € 482,289 € 580,806 € 675,680 VS 162595 Bogdana € 528,768 € 636,780 € 740,797 VS 162693 Bogdanesti € 849,801 € 1,023,391 € 1,190,561 VS 162791 Bogdanita € 478,511 € 576,257 € 670,388 VS 162871 Botesti € 810,616 € 976,201 € 1,135,663 VS 162924 Bunesti-Aversti € 709,010 € 853,841 € 993,315 VS 167268 Ciocani € 449,150 € 540,898 € 629,253 VS 163002 Codaiesti € 1,033,360 € 1,244,446 € 1,447,725 VS 163057 Coroiesti € 799,622 € 962,961 € 1,120,260 VS 163137 Costesti € 1,134,833 € 1,366,647 € 1,589,887 VS 167277 Cozmesti € 525,757 € 633,154 € 736,579 VS 163208 Cretesti € 568,833 € 685,030 € 796,928 VS 163253 Danesti € 601,178 € 723,981 € 842,243 VS 163324 Deleni € 940,040 € 1,132,063 € 1,316,984 VS 163379 Delesti € 897,772 € 1,081,161 € 1,257,768 VS 164277 Dimitrie Cantemir € 1,037,384 € 1,249,292 € 1,453,362 VS 167286 Dodesti € 741,204 € 892,610 € 1,038,417 VS 163486 Dragomiresti € 1,430,868 € 1,723,152 € 2,004,627 VS 163618 Drinceni € 1,371,409 € 1,651,547 € 1,921,326 VS 163681 Duda-Epureni € 1,040,248 € 1,252,741 € 1,457,374 VS 163734 Dumesti € 820,261 € 987,817 € 1,149,175 VS 163789 Epureni € 674,550 € 812,341 € 945,036 VS 163832 Falciu € 1,804,085 € 2,172,607 € 2 ,527,500 VS 167295 Feresti € 676,953 € 815,235 € 948,402 VS 167231 Fruntiseni € 551,125 € 663,704 € 772,120 VS 163903 Gagesti € 633,157 € 762,492 € 887,045 VS 163967 Gherghesti € 687,431 € 827,854 € 963,082 VS 164062 Girceni € 717,570 € 864,148 € 1,00 5,306 VS 164133 Grivita € 1,265,416 € 1,523,904 € 1,772,832 VS 164197 Hoceni € 1,117,508 € 1,345,783 € 1,565,615 VS 164339 Iana € 1,040,126 € 1,252,594 € 1,457,203 VS 167222 Ibanesti € 980,980 € 1,181,366 € 1,374,340 VS 164393 Ivanesti € 1,436,329 € 1 ,729,730 € 2,012,279 VS 164543 Ivesti € 724,964 € 873,053 € 1,015,665 VS 164598 Laza € 1,017,552 € 1,225,408 € 1,425,577 VS 164687 Lipovat € 1,230,330 € 1,481,651 € 1,723,676 249 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VS 164749 Lunca-Banului € 941,106 € 1,133,347 € 1,318,478 VS 164829 Malusteni € 711,317 € 856,619 € 996,546 VS 164892 Miclesti € 1,510,385 € 1,818,912 € 2,116,029 VS 164936 Munteni de Jos € 1,190,243 € 1,433,376 € 1,667,516 VS 167302 Munteni de Sus € 1,239,598 € 1,492,812 € 1,736,660 VS 165069 Oltenesti € 946,385 € 1,139,704 € 1,325,873 VS 165130 Osesti € 1,520,463 € 1,831,049 € 2,130,149 VS 165185 Padureni € 1,190,800 € 1,434,046 € 1,668,295 VS 165274 Perieni € 1,240,646 € 1,494,074 € 1,738,129 VS 167311 Pochidia € 1,006,392 € 1,211,969 € 1,409,942 VS 165416 Pogana € 771, 810 € 929,469 € 1,081,297 VS 167259 Pogonesti € 744,742 € 896,871 € 1,043,374 VS 165336 Poienesti € 815,786 € 982,427 € 1,142,905 VS 165470 Puiesti € 2,107,170 € 2,537,604 € 2,952,118 VS 165611 Pungesti € 934,985 € 1,125,975 € 1,309,902 VS 167320 Puscasi € 1,153,200 € 1,388,766 € 1,615,619 VS 167240 Rafaila € 1,331,811 € 1,603,861 € 1,865,850 VS 165719 Rebricea € 1,104,359 € 1,329,947 € 1,547,192 VS 165817 Rosiesti € 1,023,537 € 1,232,616 € 1,433,962 VS 165899 Solesti € 1,345,052 € 1,619,807 € 1,88 4,400 VS 165979 Stanilesti € 1,205,929 € 1,452,265 € 1,689,491 VS 166057 Stefan cel Mare € 1,798,219 € 2,165,542 € 2,519,281 VS 166137 Suletea € 781,807 € 941,508 € 1,095,302 VS 166235 Tacuta € 821,323 € 989,096 € 1,150,664 VS 166182 Tanacu € 626,776 € 754,808 € 878,105 VS 166315 Tatarani € 674,058 € 811,749 € 944,347 VS 166413 Todiresti € 1,178,553 € 1,419,297 € 1,651,138 VS 166529 Tutova € 1,474,834 € 1,776,100 € 2,066,224 VS 166636 Valeni € 972,460 € 1,171,105 € 1,362,403 VS 166672 Vetrisoaia € 1,133,386 € 1,364,904 € 1,587,859 VS 166707 Viisoara € 903,670 € 1,088,263 € 1,266,030 VS 166770 Vinderei € 1,220,035 € 1,469,253 € 1,709,254 VS 166869 Voinesti € 1,201,034 € 1,446,371 € 1,682,634 VS 166985 Vulturesti € 664,985 € 800,822 € 931,636 VS 167035 Vutcani € 1,257,207 € 1,514,018 € 1,761,331 VS 167071 Zapodeni € 1,551,390 € 1,868,293 € 2,173,477 250 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VS 167179 Zorleni € 2,716,926 € 3,271,915 € 3,806,378 VL 167981 Dragasani € 11,716,251 € 14,109,541 € 16,414,316 VL 167473 Rm. Valcea € 112,770,2 22 € 135,805,903 € 157,989,625 VL 167641 B. Govora € 3,031,992 € 3,651,341 € 4,247,782 VL 167696 B. Olanesti € 4,370,670 € 5,263,471 € 6,123,252 VL 168372 Babeni € 4,293,110 € 5,170,068 € 6,014,592 VL 168452 Balcesti € 2,076,021 € 2,500,092 € 2,908,478 VL 168602 Berbesti € 2,333,811 € 2,810,540 € 3,269,638 VL 167794 Brezoi € 3,998,684 € 4,815,499 € 5,602,105 VL 167909 Calimanesti € 5,610,723 € 6,756,830 € 7,860,550 VL 168041 Horezu € 5,985,886 € 7,208,628 € 8,386,148 VL 168130 Ocnele Mari € 2,197,5 85 € 2,646,488 € 3,078,789 VL 168229 Alunu € 1,920,773 € 2,313,131 € 2,690,978 VL 168309 Amarasti € 703,219 € 846,866 € 985,201 VL 168559 Barbatesti € 1,776,224 € 2,139,055 € 2,488,467 VL 168675 Berislavesti € 944,336 € 1,137,237 € 1,323,003 VL 168755 Boisoara € 635,505 € 765,321 € 890,335 VL 168791 Budesti € 2,370,228 € 2,854,397 € 3,320,659 VL 168880 Bujoreni € 1,994,362 € 2,401,752 € 2,794,075 VL 168960 Bunesti € 1,155,310 € 1,391,307 € 1,618,575 VL 169119 Caineni € 1,126,271 € 1,356,335 € 1,577 ,891 VL 169039 Cernisoara € 1,175,556 € 1,415,687 € 1,646,938 VL 169182 Copaceni € 811,631 € 977,424 € 1,137,085 VL 169253 Costesti € 1,006,461 € 1,212,052 € 1,410,039 VL 169306 Creteni € 715,138 € 861,220 € 1,001,899 VL 169351 Daesti € 1,508,175 € 1,816,251 € 2,112,933 VL 169404 Danicei € 1,250,928 € 1,506,456 € 1,752,533 VL 174502 Diculesti € 884,625 € 1,065,328 € 1,239,348 VL 169547 Dragoesti € 795,590 € 958,106 € 1,114,611 VL 169681 Fartatesti € 1,373,350 € 1,653,885 € 1,924,045 VL 169583 Fauresti € 668,425 € 804,964 € 936,454 VL 169896 Francesti € 1,899,905 € 2,288,000 € 2,661,742 VL 169994 Galicea € 2,249,059 € 2,708,477 € 3,150,903 VL 170097 Ghioroiu € 583,482 € 702,671 € 817,451 VL 170168 Glavile € 704,998 € 849,008 € 987,693 VL 170220 Golesti € 1,142,608 € 1,376,010 € 1,600,780 251 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VL 170346 Gradistea € 897,869 € 1,081,277 € 1,257,902 VL 170444 Gusoieni € 3,446,992 € 4,151,112 € 4,829,191 VL 170514 Ionesti € 3,488,713 € 4,201,356 € 4,887,642 VL 174511 Lacusteni € 630,360 € 759,125 € 88 3,127 VL 170685 Ladesti € 612,638 € 737,783 € 858,299 VL 170612 Lalosu € 686,456 € 826,679 € 961,716 VL 170792 Lapusata € 751,542 € 905,060 € 1,052,900 VL 170872 Livezi € 989,569 € 1,191,709 € 1,386,373 VL 170952 Lungesti € 849,378 € 1,022,882 € 1,189 ,968 VL 171101 Maciuca € 778,827 € 937,918 € 1,091,126 VL 171209 Madulari € 1,570,202 € 1,890,949 € 2,199,833 VL 171021 Malaia € 1,894,798 € 2,281,851 € 2,654,588 VL 171272 Maldaresti € 1,168,998 € 1,407,791 € 1,637,751 VL 171067 Mateesti € 1,040,788 € 1,253,391 € 1,458,131 VL 171325 Mihaesti € 2,438,423 € 2,936,522 € 3,416,199 VL 171469 Milcoiu € 968,130 € 1,165,890 € 1,356,337 VL 174520 Mitrofani € 441,216 € 531,344 € 618,138 VL 171539 Muereasca € 764,967 € 921,227 € 1,071,709 VL 171628 N. Balcescu € 1,945,558 € 2,342,979 € 2,725,701 VL 171806 Olanu € 1,046,675 € 1,260,481 € 1,466,379 VL 171879 Orlesti € 2,980,604 € 3,589,455 € 4,175,788 VL 171931 Otesani € 726,944 € 875,437 € 1,018,439 VL 172082 P. Maglasi € 1,404,302 € 1,691,160 € 1,967,409 VL 171995 Pausesti O. € 1,061,886 € 1,278,798 € 1,487,688 VL 172153 Perisani € 2,151,907 € 2,591,479 € 3,014,794 VL 172279 Pesceana € 1,003,472 € 1,208,453 € 1,405,852 VL 172340 Pietrari € 996,398 € 1,199,933 € 1,395,941 VL 172377 Popesti € 1,835,755 € 2,210,746 € 2,571,869 VL 172457 Prundeni € 3,389,937 € 4,082,403 € 4,749,258 VL 172509 Racovita € 905,439 € 1,090,394 € 1,268,508 VL 172581 Roesti € 844,876 € 1,017,460 € 1,183,660 VL 172698 Rosiile € 818,696 € 985,932 € 1,146,982 VL 172812 Runcu € 542,726 € 653,589 € 760,352 VL 172894 Salatrucel € 850,871 € 1,024,679 € 1,192,059 VL 172947 Scundu € 1,095,946 € 1,319,816 € 1,535,406 VL 172992 Sinesti € 753,895 € 907,893 € 1,056,197 252 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VL 173686 Sirineasa € 826,698 € 995,568 € 1,158,193 VL 173061 Slatioara € 1,487,587 € 1,791,457 € 2,084,090 VL 173132 Stanesti € 883,005 € 1,063,378 € 1,237,079 VL 173748 Stefanesti € 983,334 € 1,184,201 € 1,377,639 VL 173230 Stoenesti € 1,416,020 € 1,705,272 € 1,983,826 VL 173374 Stoilesti € 2,133,686 € 2,569,536 € 2,989,267 VL 173533 Stroesti € 1,308,846 € 1,576,205 € 1,833,676 VL 173793 Susani € 1,221,409 € 1,470,907 € 1,711,178 VL 173597 Sutesti € 4,078,832 € 4,912,019 € 5,714,391 VL 173855 Tetoiu € 887,690 € 1,069,019 € 1,243,642 VL 174496 Titesti € 438,21 0 € 527,723 € 613,926 VL 173935 Tomsani € 1,176,320 € 1,416,608 € 1,648,009 VL 174021 Vaideeni € 5,058,956 € 6,092,354 € 7,087,532 VL 174085 Valea Mare € 2,132,862 € 2,568,544 € 2,988,112 VL 174156 Vladesti € 1,293,093 € 1,557,234 € 1,811,606 VL 174218 Voicesti € 1,435,165 € 1,728,328 € 2,010,648 VL 174254 Voineasa € 951,695 € 1,146,098 € 1,333,312 VL 174290 Zatreni € 1,174,394 € 1,414,289 € 1,645,311 VN 174860 Adjud € 11,029,608 € 13,282,636 € 15,452,338 VN 174744 Focsani € 64,657,776 € 77,865,482 € 90,584,710 VN 174922 Marasesti € 5,398,017 € 6,500,675 € 7,562,552 VN 175019 Odobesti € 6,177,669 € 7,439,588 € 8,654,835 VN 175055 Panciu € 9,106,928 € 10,967,209 € 12,758,688 VN 175126 Andreiasu de Jos € 815,580 € 982,179 € 1,142,616 VN 175206 Balesti € 743,256 € 895,081 € 1,041,292 VN 178929 Biliesti € 777,544 € 936,374 € 1,089,329 VN 175224 Birsesti € 786,705 € 947,406 € 1,102,163 VN 175260 Boghesti € 607,945 € 732,131 € 851,723 VN 175368 Bolotesti € 1,206,226 € 1,452,623 € 1,689,907 VN 175439 Bordesti € 545,204 € 656,573 € 763,824 VN 175466 Brosteni € 631,424 € 760,406 € 884,617 VN 175509 Chiojdeni € 667,315 € 803,628 € 934,899 VN 174780 Cimpineanca € 1,372,793 € 1,653,215 € 1,923,265 VN 175670 Cimpuri € 1,003,767 € 1,208,808 € 1,406,26 5 VN 175590 Ciorasti € 1,183,910 € 1,425,748 € 1,658,643 VN 175732 Cirligele € 1,356,136 € 1,633,155 € 1,899,929 253 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VN 175787 Corbita € 774,511 € 932,722 € 1,085,080 VN 175885 Cotesti € 1,538,555 € 1,852,837 € 2,155,495 VN 175938 Dumbraveni € 1,319,936 € 1,589,561 € 1,849,214 VN 175983 Dumitresti € 1,848,849 € 2,226,515 € 2,590,213 VN 176150 Fitionesti € 2,539,428 € 3,058,160 € 3,557,706 VN 176212 Garoafa € 1,617,639 € 1,948,075 € 2,266,291 VN 174824 Golesti € 1,692,775 € 2,038,560 € 2,371,556 VN 178938 Gologanu € 1,088,002 € 1,310,249 € 1,524,277 VN 176301 Gugesti € 2,475,283 € 2,980,912 € 3,467,840 VN 176338 Gura Calitei € 884,317 € 1,064,957 € 1,238,916 VN 176445 Homocea € 1,692,026 € 2,037,658 € 2,370,507 VN 176506 Jaristea € 1,395,820 € 1,680 ,945 € 1,955,526 VN 176551 Jitia € 556,933 € 670,698 € 780,256 VN 176613 Maicanesti € 1,305,800 € 1,572,537 € 1,829,409 VN 176686 Mera € 1,415,356 € 1,704,472 € 1,982,896 VN 176748 Milcovul € 929,434 € 1,119,291 € 1,302,125 VN 176793 Movilita € 1,223, 412 € 1,473,320 € 1,713,985 VN 176855 Nanesti € 761,351 € 916,873 € 1,066,643 VN 176891 Naruja € 738,877 € 889,808 € 1,035,156 VN 178885 Negrilesti € 867,743 € 1,044,997 € 1,215,696 VN 176944 Nereju € 1,346,523 € 1,621,578 € 1,886,461 VN 177003 Nistoresti € 755,203 € 909,469 € 1,058,030 VN 178947 Obrejita € 826,672 € 995,537 € 1,158,156 VN 177101 Paltin € 993,239 € 1,196,129 € 1,391,515 VN 178910 Paulesti € 773,441 € 931,433 € 1,083,581 VN 177236 Paunesti € 1,678,930 € 2,021,887 € 2,352,159 VN 178894 Ploscuteni € 1,132,968 € 1,364,401 € 1,587,274 VN 177263 Poiana Cristei € 1,344,744 € 1,619,436 € 1,883,969 VN 178901 Popesti € 1,034,587 € 1,245,923 € 1,449,443 VN 177352 Pufesti € 1,237,695 € 1,490,520 € 1,733,995 VN 177405 Racoasa € 1,128,610 € 1,359,152 € 1,581,168 VN 178956 Rastoaca € 896,259 € 1,079,339 € 1,255,648 VN 177469 Reghiu € 700,069 € 843,073 € 980,788 VN 177557 Ruginesti € 1,057,654 € 1,273,702 € 1,481,760 VN 177600 Sihlea € 1,418,071 € 1,707,742 € 1,986,699 VN 177655 Slobozia Bradului € 1,721,234 € 2,072,833 € 2,411,427 254 Prudent Capital Expenditure Margin for 2014-2022 SIRUTA County Locality Code Pessimistic Average Optimistic Scenario Scenario Scenario VN 177726 Slobozia Ciorasti € 1,203,261 € 1,449,052 € 1,685,753 VN 177762 Soveja € 922,388 € 1,110,805 € 1,292,254 VN 178965 Spulber € 819,363 € 986,735 € 1,147,916 VN 177799 Straoane € 1,249,891 € 1,505,207 € 1,751,081 VN 177842 Suraia € 1,872,106 € 2,254,523 € 2,622,797 VN 177879 Tanasoaia € 1,213,672 € 1,461,590 € 1,700,339 VN 177986 Tataranu € 1,651,565 € 1,988,932 € 2,313,821 VN 178180 Tifesti € 1,452,646 € 1,749,380 € 2,035,139 VN 178046 Timboiesti € 1,535,396 € 1,849,032 € 2,151,070 VN 178117 Tulnici € 1,405,275 € 1,692,332 € 1,968,772 VN 178279 Urechesti € 812,584 € 978,572 € 1,138,420 VN 178313 Valea Sarii € 698,711 € 841,438 € 978,886 VN 178377 Vidra € 2,000,289 € 2,408,890 € 2,802,379 VN 178607 Vinatori € 2,304,292 € 2,774,992 € 3,228,284 VN 178475 Vintileasca € 786,345 € 946,972 € 1,101,659 VN 178689 Virtescoiu € 740,038 € 891,206 € 1,036,784 VN 178545 Vizantea Livezi € 1,005,184 € 1,210,513 € 1,408,249 VN 178750 Vrincioaia € 714,296 € 860,206 € 1,000,720 VN 178821 Vulturu € 2,186,781 € 2,633,477 € 3,063,652 B 179141 Sector 1 € 639,619,408 € 770,275,078 € 896,098,534 B 179150 Sector 2 € 362,038,803 € 435,992,816 € 507,211,689 B 179169 Sector 3 € 354,381,094 € 426,770,859 € 496,483,33 8 B 179178 Sector 4 € 220,241,766 € 265,230,762 € 308,555,871 B 179187 Sector 5 € 186,412,599 € 224,491,279 € 261,161,644 B 179196 Sector 6 € 278,617,366 € 335,530,803 € 390,339,334 B 179132 CGM BUCURESTI € 2,347,046,650 € 2,792,650,960 € 3,288,182,059 255 Annex 12. Prioritization of funds allocation for county road development, by county Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Investments Populati LHDI FSI Number ranking ranking rankin rankin ranking real Needs on of Motor Investme Populat g LHDI g FSI Number ranking Vehicles nt Needs ion of Motor County Vehicles Roads IASI € 164,419,008 772,348 73 € 91,551,487 171,822 2 2 26 9 11 8 CLUJ € 127,474,656 691,106 87 € 149,399,304 257,509 6 4 39 3 3 10 ARGES € 143,450,592 612,431 76 € 92,588,602 222,310 4 10 32 8 6 10 SUCEAVA € 119,153,856 634,810 69 € 62,737,542 180,840 8 8 14 18 10 11 BACAU € 89,864,640 616,168 68 € 73,412,500 160,579 14 9 12 15 14 13 BIHOR € 76,884,192 575,398 71 € 75,874,420 206,878 20 11 17 14 8 14 TIMIS € 75,220,032 683,540 83 € 135,000,063 257,555 23 6 37 4 2 15 BRASOV € 87,201,984 549,217 87 € 107,515,774 211,261 15 13 40 6 7 15 CONSTANTA € 63,570,912 684,082 77 € 192,861,456 240,110 27 5 35 2 5 16 HUNEDOARA € 226,325,760 418,565 75 € 58,826,240 137,430 1 21 31 20 18 16 SIBIU € 127,807,488 397,322 84 € 82,890,324 145,399 5 23 38 11 16 17 DOLJ € 62,239,584 660,544 73 € 82,248,090 194,821 29 7 27 12 9 18 ARAD € 85,204,992 430,629 74 € 83,265,926 163,052 18 20 30 10 13 18 BUZAU € 86,869,152 451,069 66 € 50,754,773 126,100 16 18 10 25 22 18 VASLUI € 158,095,200 395,499 60 € 39,516,919 72,059 3 24 4 33 38 19 PRAHOVA € 32,617,536 762,886 77 € 110,686,247 240,792 38 3 36 5 4 19 256 Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Investments Populati LHDI FSI Number ranking ranking rankin rankin ranking real Needs on of Motor Investme Populat g LHDI g FSI Number ranking Vehicles nt Needs ion of Motor County Vehicles Roads MARAMURES € 86,869,152 478,659 73 € 51,325,288 144,247 17 16 28 23 17 19 NEAMT € 76,551,360 470,766 68 € 50,936,785 128,100 21 17 13 24 21 19 TELEORMAN € 90,197,472 380,123 56 € 41,191,766 75,258 13 26 1 31 33 21 GALATI € 58,911,264 536,167 72 € 63,194,006 157,389 31 14 22 17 15 21 ALBA € 125,810,496 342,376 76 € 49,575,409 120,251 7 29 33 26 23 21 MURES € 45,265,152 550,846 76 € 78,846,776 168,748 34 12 34 13 12 22 BISTRITA- NASAUD € 117,489,696 286,225 72 € 68,872,541 85,212 10 36 23 16 31 22 DAMBOVITA € 53,918,784 518,745 71 € 61,388,746 131,564 33 15 18 19 19 22 BOTOSANI € 76,218,528 412,626 60 € 53,873,908 72,205 22 22 5 22 37 22 OLT € 64,902,240 436,400 63 € 43,641,882 103,610 26 19 7 30 27 23 HARGHITA € 115,492,704 310,867 71 € 40,216,722 103,365 11 33 19 32 28 23 CALARASI € 117,822,528 306,691 59 € 30,130,047 57,511 9 34 3 41 42 25 VRANCEA € 78,548,352 340,310 66 € 37,280,671 97,728 19 31 11 35 29 25 VALCEA € 65 ,900,736 371,714 71 € 48,814,026 114,389 25 27 20 27 25 25 MEHEDINTI € 97,519,776 265,390 65 € 33,396,987 74,459 12 39 8 37 34 25 SATU MARE € 62,905,248 344,360 72 € 54,361,165 115,630 28 28 24 21 24 26 CARAS-SEVERIN € 67,232,064 295,579 70 € 38,483,934 86,875 24 35 16 34 30 28 ILFOV € 11,649,120 388,738 89 € 98,673,675 128,718 41 25 41 7 20 29 257 Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Investments Populati LHDI FSI Number ranking ranking rankin rankin ranking real Needs on of Motor Investme Populat g LHDI g FSI Number ranking Vehicles nt Needs ion of Motor County Vehicles Roads GIURGIU € 54,584,448 281,422 58 € 31,398,149 62,849 32 37 2 39 40 31 GORJ € 26,959,392 341,594 73 € 48,595,312 108,316 39 30 29 28 26 31 BRAILA € 35,613,024 321,212 72 € 45,398,317 83,266 37 32 25 29 32 32 SALAJ € 60,575,424 224,384 69 € 26,708,356 72,323 30 40 15 42 36 33 IALOMITA € 37,277,184 274,148 61 € 32,283,622 63,133 36 38 6 38 39 33 TULCEA € 43,268,160 213,083 65 € 36,731,848 58,982 35 41 9 36 41 34 COVASNA € 14,311,776 210,177 71 € 30,802,640 74,448 40 42 21 40 35 37 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking County Roads = 0.3*Real Ranking Investment Needs + 0.2*Real Ranking Population + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI + 0.2*Real Ranking Number of Motor Vehicles 258 Annex 13. Prioritization of funds allocation for communal road development, by county Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Total real county Investments Rural LHDI FSI ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking Needs Population Investment Rural LHDI FSI Communal Needs Population Roads SUCEAVA € 199,311,180 366,577 69 € 184,678,324 7 4 14 7 7 BIHOR € 239,753,934 290,268 71 € 182,356,394 2 10 17 8 8 ARGES € 249,042,222 330,789 76 € 196,336,105 1 6 32 5 8 BACAU € 177,445,002 364,525 68 € 146,072,884 8 5 12 13 8 BUZAU € 214,017,636 276,942 66 € 121,693,586 4 11 10 19 9 IASI € 150,934,680 417,228 73 € 160,667,473 11 1 26 11 10 BOTOSANI € 200,859,228 244,854 60 € 98,056,336 6 16 5 29 12 DOLJ € 136,228,224 316,507 73 € 162,773,251 13 7 27 10 13 TIMIS € 175,896,954 256,101 83 € 269,839,650 9 15 37 2 14 NEAMT € 123,263,322 301,167 68 € 132,859,517 18 9 13 16 14 OLT € 126,746,430 272,145 63 € 118,288,210 17 13 7 20 15 DAMBOVITA € 88,045,230 368,702 71 € 141,753,593 25 3 18 15 16 VASLUI € 134,293,164 242,490 60 € 100,568,581 15 18 4 26 16 CLUJ € 161,384,004 232,738 87 € 193,745,153 10 20 39 6 17 MURES € 131,777,586 274,073 76 € 158,402,393 16 12 34 12 17 VALCEA € 102,171,168 305,841 71 € 127,724,634 23 8 20 17 17 259 Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Total real county Investments Rural LHDI FSI ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking Needs Population Investment Rural LHDI FSI Communal Needs Population Roads CONSTANTA € 135,454,200 223,337 77 € 200,397,218 14 21 35 4 18 PRAHOVA € 73,338,774 382,318 77 € 243,689,190 29 2 36 3 18 HARGHITA € 144,548,982 212,706 71 € 96,981,912 12 22 19 31 19 ALBA € 202,987,794 143,964 76 € 91,332,239 5 33 33 33 22 TELEORMAN € 38,894,706 256,935 56 € 114,339,900 37 14 1 22 22 ARAD € 107,976,348 192,029 74 € 145,854,747 21 27 30 14 23 HUNEDOARA € 236,851,344 102,568 75 € 85,919,072 3 41 31 35 23 GORJ € 118,232,166 183,588 73 € 114,488,603 20 29 29 21 24 VRANCEA € 79,530,966 212,402 66 € 97,526,481 28 23 11 30 24 GALATI € 64,050,486 239,579 72 € 127,378,819 32 19 22 18 25 BISTRITA- NASAUD € 90,560,808 190,934 72 € 100,695,633 24 28 23 25 25 MARAMURES € 86,690,688 203,373 73 € 99,890,284 26 24 28 27 26 MEHEDINTI € 103,912,722 141,166 65 € 79,024,280 22 34 8 39 26 SALAJ € 123 ,263,322 136,125 69 € 81,150,347 19 36 15 38 26 SATU MARE € 84,949,134 180,477 72 € 101,398,570 27 30 24 24 27 ILFOV € 3,676,614 243,605 89 € 280,675,772 41 17 41 1 28 GIURGIU € 27,090,840 199,217 58 € 99,350,419 39 26 2 28 28 CALARASI € 19,931,118 202,112 59 € 95,689,263 40 25 3 32 29 260 Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Total real county Investments Rural LHDI FSI ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking Needs Population Investment Rural LHDI FSI Communal Needs Population Roads TULCEA € 69,662,160 113,502 65 € 86,832,040 30 39 9 34 30 BRASOV € 60,954,390 152,191 87 € 167,174,481 33 32 40 9 30 IALOMITA € 40,636,260 153,928 61 € 77,874,689 36 31 6 40 31 SIBIU € 66,759,570 139,875 84 € 113,777,586 31 35 38 23 32 CARAS- SEVERIN € 56,503,752 135,031 70 € 81,776,782 34 37 16 36 33 BRAILA € 43,538,850 120,447 72 € 81,418,287 35 38 25 37 35 COVASNA € 37,153,152 109,366 71 € 57,839,559 38 40 21 41 37 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Communal Roads = 0.4*Real Ranking Investment Needs + 0.3*Real Ranking Rural Population + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI + 0.2*Real Ranking Number of Motor Vehicles 261 Annex 14. Prioritization of funds allocation for water infrastructure, by water region Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real ranking Total real Investments People LHDI Revenues Affordability rankin ranking rankin ranking Affordability ranking Needs (in without of Water g People g LHDI Revenu Water Euro) Access to Companie Invest without es of Infrastruct Piped s (in 1,000 ment Access Water ure Water RON) Needs to Compa Piped nies Water IASI € 1,420,710 426,681 73 109,699 0.00219076 2 3 25 3 30 10 ARGES € 1,158,467 395,160 76 68,628 0.001906059 5 4 32 6 12 10 SUCEAVA € 1,637,014 469,125 69 44,744 0.002491197 1 2 13 15 41 11 TIMIS € 911,012 284,876 83 90,193 0.001382333 9 14 37 4 3 12 BACAU € 1,009,432 274,812 68 49,813 0.002085987 7 16 11 14 23 12 PRAHOVA € 1,381,076 573,004 77 29,921 0.002142857 3 1 35 23 27 14 BRASOV € 1,166,906 204,813 87 80,311 0.001898917 4 28 40 5 11 14 MURES € 1,038,365 259,114 76 62,714 0.002004792 6 18 33 7 21 14 CONSTANTA- € 465,478 312,601 72 198,998 0.001924448 20 11 20 1 15 15 IALOMITA TELEORMAN € 856,757 288,150 56 21,679 0.002300263 11 13 1 28 33 16 NEAMT € 839,887 223,850 68 50,000 0.002154399 13 23 12 13 28 17 BUZAU € 846,915 257,274 66 40,772 0.002404418 12 19 9 17 36 17 DOLJ € 427,878 330,544 73 61,724 0.001854354 23 10 26 9 10 17 OLT € 456,856 361,468 63 18,757 0.001918367 21 7 6 34 14 18 SATU MARE € 893,781 164,787 72 32,982 0.001976744 10 31 22 20 18 18 GIURGIU € 563,739 207,694 58 11,231 0.001788026 17 27 2 38 7 18 262 Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real ranking Total real Investments People LHDI Revenues Affordability rankin ranking rankin ranking Affordability ranking Needs (in without of Water g People g LHDI Revenu Water Euro) Access to Companie Invest without es of Infrastruct Piped s (in 1,000 ment Access Water ure Water RON) Needs to Compa Piped nies Water MARAMURES € 552,767 268,690 73 34,607 0.001831256 18 17 27 19 9 18 ALBA € 977,718 152,766 76 44,493 0.001995114 8 33 34 16 20 19 BOTOSANI € 613,863 282,787 60 5,897 0.002113594 15 15 5 40 25 19 GALATI € 582,706 229,354 72 62,286 0.002290076 16 22 21 8 32 19 VALCEA € 833,711 198,479 71 19,240 0.00190975 14 29 18 33 13 20 VASLUI € 443,097 296,528 60 25,750 0.002265774 22 12 4 26 31 20 CLUJ-SALAJ € 232,216 386,946 83 127,955 0.001580087 32 5 36 2 5 20 BIHOR € 342,427 358,360 71 54,569 0.002458564 27 8 15 11 39 22 DAMBOVITA € 477,813 350,878 71 32.08 0.00245614 19 9 16 42 38 23 ARAD € 380,693 181,466 74 60,944 0.002021773 26 30 29 10 22 24 VRANCEA € 310,722 220,867 66 30,219 0.002337662 28 24 10 22 35 25 CARAS € 421,267 140,969 70 28,072 0.002178047 24 SEVERIN 36 14 25 29 25 HARGHITA € 226,188 250,221 71 7,920 0.001793169 33 20 17 39 8 26 COVASNA € 410,083 129,168 71 15,650 0.001981567 25 37 19 37 19 27 CALARASI € 240,553 208,191 59 20,196 0.002475512 31 26 3 30 40 27 HUNEDOARA € 212,390 229,929 75 32,212 0.001946083 36 21 30 21 17 28 MEHEDINTI € 224,783 143,004 65 21,595 0.00211094 34 35 7 29 24 28 TULCEA € 282,053 102,650 65 24,503 0.002429467 29 38 8 27 37 28 SIBIU € 106,391 156,057 84 54,003 0.001587983 39 32 38 12 6 29 ILFOV € 198,289 371,923 89 1,314 0.001305048 38 6 42 41 2 29 263 Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real ranking Total real Investments People LHDI Revenues Affordability rankin ranking rankin ranking Affordability ranking Needs (in without of Water g People g LHDI Revenu Water Euro) Access to Companie Invest without es of Infrastruct Piped s (in 1,000 ment Access Water ure Water RON) Needs to Compa Piped nies Water GORJ € -11,921 218,529 73 19,685 0.000896597 41 25 28 31 1 29 BRAILA € 264,807 21,101 72 34,768 0.002301724 30 39 24 18 34 29 BISTRITA € 203,514 152,596 72 29,803 0.002113821 37 NASAUD 34 23 24 26 31 ARIES € 5,845 7,286 87 18,040 0.001547376 40 42 41 35 4 34 VALEA JIULUI € 219,394 16,358 75 19,260 0.002510531 35 40 31 32 42 36 TARNAVE € -20,804 14,059 84 15,775 0.001938484 42 41 39 36 16 37 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Water Infrastructure = 0.4*Real Ranking Investment Needs + 0.3*Real Ranking People without Access to Piped Water + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI + 0.15*Real Ranking Affordability 264 Annex 15. Prioritization of funds allocation for wastewater infrastructure, by water region Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real Total Investments People Human Revenues Affordability ranking ranking ranking ranking rankin real Needs (in without Developm of Water Investm People LHDI Revenues g rankin Euro) Access to ent Index Companies ent without of Water Afford g WW a Sewage value (in 1,000 Needs Access to Companies ability System RON) Sewage BACAU € 1,009,432 433738 68 49,813 0.000796178 7 6 11 14 10 9 SUCEAVA € 1,637,014 477208 69 44,744 0.001355634 1 5 13 15 30 10 IASI € 1,420,710 492263 73 109,699 0.001467958 2 4 25 3 33 11 PRAHOVA € 1,381,076 677808 77 29,921 0.000864286 3 1 35 23 12 12 TIMIS € 911,012 347443 83 90,193 0.000869858 9 13 37 4 13 14 ARGES € 1,158,467 431917 76 68,628 0.001674609 5 7 32 6 38 14 MURES € 1,038,365 311120 76 62,714 0.00115016 6 15 33 7 26 15 BUZAU € 846,915 287672 66 40,772 0.001053526 12 21 9 17 20 15 BRASOV € 1,166,906 257585 87 80,311 0.001148014 4 23 40 5 25 16 VASLUI € 443,097 310799 60 25,750 0.000372849 22 16 4 26 2 16 DOLJ € 427,878 360544 73 61,724 0.000548048 23 12 26 9 5 17 TELEORMAN € 856,757 299844 56 21,679 0.001597893 11 19 1 28 36 17 CONSTANTA- IALOMITA € 465,478 542297 72 198,998 0.001796151 20 2 20 1 39 17 GALATI € 582,706 244433 72 62,286 0.000961832 16 27 21 8 17 17 VALCEA € 833,711 253960 71 19,240 0.000386785 14 25 18 33 3 17 265 Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real Total Investments People Human Revenues Affordability ranking ranking ranking ranking rankin real Needs (in without Developm of Water Investm People LHDI Revenues g rankin Euro) Access to ent Index Companies ent without of Water Afford g WW a Sewage value (in 1,000 Needs Access to Companies ability System RON) Sewage NEAMT € 839,887 301829 68 50,000 0.002082585 13 18 12 13 42 18 SATU MARE € 893,781 204793 72 32,982 0.001100179 10 32 22 20 21 18 MARAMURES € 552,767 321777 73 34,607 0.000920422 18 14 27 19 15 18 BOTOSANI € 613,863 302190 60 5,897 0.001108007 15 17 5 40 22 19 ALBA € 977,718 205406 76 44,493 0.001131922 8 31 34 16 23 19 BIHOR € 342,427 379343 71 54,569 0.001022099 27 10 15 11 19 19 OLT € 456,856 383754 63 18,757 0.001371429 21 9 6 34 32 21 CLUJ-SALAJ € 232,216 533129 83 127,955 0.000894661 32 3 36 2 14 21 CARAS SEVERIN € 421,267 176680 70 28,072 0.000656871 24 35 14 25 6 22 GIURGIU € 563,739 231169 58 11,231 0.001618123 17 29 2 38 37 23 DAMBOVITA € 477,813 418624 71 32.08 0.001539075 19 8 16 42 35 23 MEHEDINTI € 224,783 165081 65 21,595 0.000223421 34 36 7 29 1 25 BRAILA € 264,807 135423 72 34,768 0.000405172 30 38 24 18 4 25 TULCEA € 282,053 115669 65 24,503 0.000932602 29 39 8 27 16 25 ARAD € 380,693 293591 74 60,944 0.002021773 26 20 29 10 41 25 VRANCEA € 310,722 238312 66 30,219 0.001836735 28 28 10 22 40 26 HUNEDOARA € 212,390 257261 75 32,212 0.00073294 36 24 30 21 8 27 266 Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real Total Investments People Human Revenues Affordability ranking ranking ranking ranking rankin real Needs (in without Developm of Water Investm People LHDI Revenues g rankin Euro) Access to ent Index Companies ent without of Water Afford g WW a Sewage value (in 1,000 Needs Access to Companies ability System RON) Sewage CALARASI € 240,553 228191 59 20,196 0.001495993 31 30 3 30 34 27 HARGHITA € 226,188 263579 71 7,920 0.00113852 33 22 17 39 24 29 COVASNA € 410,083 139167 71 15,650 0.001364055 25 37 19 37 31 29 BISTRITA NASAUD € 203,514 195395 72 29,803 0.00097561 37 33 23 24 18 30 SIBIU € 106,391 189768 84 54,003 0.000793991 39 34 38 12 9 30 ILFOV € 198,289 372076 89 1,314 0.000708915 38 11 42 41 7 30 GORJ € -11,921 248535 73 19,685 0.000831152 41 26 28 31 11 31 VALEA JIULUI € 219,394 54809 75 19,260 0.001162595 35 40 31 32 28 34 ARIES € 5,845 38596 87 18,040 0.001186094 40 41 41 35 29 38 TARNAVE € -20,804 16814 84 15,775 0.001158798 42 42 39 36 27 38 267 Region MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN Real Real Real Real Real Total Investments People Human Revenues Affordability ranking ranking ranking ranking rankin real Needs (in without Developm of Water Investm People LHDI Revenues g rankin Euro) Access to ent Index Companies ent without of Water Afford g WW a Sewage value (in 1,000 Needs Access to Companies ability System RON) Sewage Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Wasteater Infrastructure = 0.4*Real Ranking Investment Needs + 0.3*Real Ranking People without Access to Sewage + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI + 0.15*Real Ranking Affordability Annex 16. Prioritization of funds allocation for health infrastructure, by county Indicator / MAX MIN MAX MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Life Number of Number Share of Number ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking real rank expect inhabitant of population of life number of number ageing number health ancy s/physicia hospital over 65 inhabitan expectanc inhabitants of of n beds/100 years old ts/pharm y /physician hospital inhabitant 000 acy beds/100 s/pharma inhabitant 000 cy s inhabitant s SATU MARE 72 604 500 14 2,315 41 22 25 40 36 32 268 Indicator / MAX MIN MAX MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Life Number of Number Share of Number ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking real rank expect inhabitant of population of life number of number ageing number health ancy s/physicia hospital over 65 inhabitan expectanc inhabitants of of n beds/100 years old ts/pharm y /physician hospital inhabitant 000 acy beds/100 s/pharma inhabitant 000 cy s inhabitant s GIURGIU 73 859 292 20 2,515 38 39 41 3 34 30 TULCEA 73 682 345 16 3,126 40 30 38 26 21 28 SUCEAVA 76 779 416 16 2,891 4 36 35 25 27 28 DAMBOVITA 75 851 488 16 3,437 8 38 29 27 20 27 CONSTANTA 74 386 574 14 2,305 30 9 13 38 37 26 MARAMURES 74 584 558 14 2,707 26 19 16 35 29 26 BISTRITA- NASAUD 75 731 466 15 3,802 15 32 31 33 15 25 HARGHITA 75 666 596 16 2,625 11 25 11 29 31 25 PRAHOVA 75 705 491 18 2,639 9 31 27 14 30 25 IALOMITA 74 891 304 18 4,347 36 40 40 12 8 24 ILFOV 75 594 425 13 3,896 20 21 34 41 13 24 BIHOR 74 325 672 15 2,090 35 6 7 30 39 24 VASLUI 74 787 471 17 4,025 22 37 30 17 11 23 CALARASI 73 942 378 18 5,120 39 41 37 9 2 22 IASI 75 281 858 14 1,872 12 4 2 37 41 22 269 Indicator / MAX MIN MAX MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Life Number of Number Share of Number ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking real rank expect inhabitant of population of life number of number ageing number health ancy s/physicia hospital over 65 inhabitan expectanc inhabitants of of n beds/100 years old ts/pharm y /physician hospital inhabitant 000 acy beds/100 s/pharma inhabitant 000 cy s inhabitant s BUZAU 75 759 529 20 3,012 18 34 21 2 25 22 GALATI 74 676 491 16 4,520 25 28 28 28 7 21 BACAU 74 665 447 17 3,972 34 24 32 20 12 21 TIMIS 75 193 799 14 2,359 19 2 4 39 35 21 BRASOV 76 376 586 15 2,621 3 8 12 34 32 20 ARAD 74 391 519 16 2,894 29 10 22 22 26 20 BOTOSANI 74 748 499 18 4,722 33 33 26 13 5 20 GORJ 75 533 618 15 3,040 13 15 10 31 23 20 SIBIU 75 354 659 14 2,859 10 7 8 36 28 20 SALAJ 73 581 534 17 3,555 37 18 20 15 18 20 BRAILA 74 673 536 19 3,454 27 27 19 5 19 19 DOLJ 74 318 652 18 2,060 24 5 9 10 40 19 MEHEDINTI 74 585 507 18 3,560 28 20 23 11 17 18 ALBA 75 536 569 17 3,035 6 16 15 16 24 17 NEAMT 75 669 408 19 4,167 17 26 36 6 10 17 270 Indicator / MAX MIN MAX MAX MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total county Life Number of Number Share of Number ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking real rank expect inhabitant of population of life number of number ageing number health ancy s/physicia hospital over 65 inhabitan expectanc inhabitants of of n beds/100 years old ts/pharm y /physician hospital inhabitant 000 acy beds/100 s/pharma inhabitant 000 cy s inhabitant s TELEORMAN 74 682 507 23 4,210 32 29 24 1 9 17 MURES 75 256 705 17 2,551 16 3 5 21 33 17 CLUJ 76 192 977 16 2,132 2 1 1 24 38 17 VRANCEA 76 769 334 19 5,593 5 35 39 8 1 17 COVASNA 75 516 826 15 3,808 14 14 3 32 14 17 OLT 74 610 445 19 4,587 21 23 33 7 6 16 ARGES 75 453 553 16 3,798 7 12 17 23 16 15 VALCEA 78 578 536 19 3,044 1 17 18 4 22 14 CARAS-SEVERIN 74 509 573 17 4,981 31 13 14 19 3 13 HUNEDOARA 74 402 694 17 4,839 23 11 6 18 4 11 271 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Health Infrastructure = 0.1*Real Ranking Life Expectancy + 0.3*Real Ranking Number of Inhabitants per Physician + 0.1*Real Ranking Number of Hospital Beds per 100,000 inhabitants + 0.2*Real Ranking Aging + 0.3*Real Ranking Number of Inhabitants per Pharmacy 272 Annex 17. Prioritization of funds allocation for education infrastructure, by county Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN MIN Real Real Real Real Real Real Total real county Share Early Human FSI value Number Number ranking ranking ranking rankin ranking ranking ranking of 3-18 school develop of of school share of 3- early LHDI g FSI number number education years leaving ment PCs/1000 sports 18 years school of of old rate Index pupils fields / old leaving PCs/100 sports popula value 1000 population rate 0 pupils fields/1 tion pupils 000 pupils BOTOSANI 21 4 60 € 53,873,908 71 1 3 2 4 21 7 4 6 SUCEAVA 21 3 69 € 6 2,737,542 66 1 2 22 14 17 3 9 9 VASLUI 22 2 60 € 39,516,919 70 1 1 29 5 32 6 1 10 BACAU 20 3 68 € 73,412,500 85 1 5 16 12 14 31 14 12 VRANCEA 19 4 66 € 37,280,671 79 1 8 4 10 34 21 2 13 IASI 20 1 73 € 91,551,487 74 1 4 40 29 8 10 7 13 IALOMITA 19 4 61 € 32,283,622 77 2 9 1 6 37 14 28 14 CALARASI 19 4 59 € 30,130,047 68 2 13 5 3 40 5 19 15 GALATI 18 3 72 € 63,194,006 75 1 17 13 24 16 12 3 16 SATU MARE 19 4 72 € 54,361,165 86 2 10 6 23 20 34 23 17 NEAMT 19 2 68 € 50,936,785 87 2 7 32 13 23 35 24 17 BISTRITA- NASAUD 20 2 72 € 68,872,541 85 2 6 31 25 15 30 30 18 MURES 18 3 76 € 78,846,776 80 1 18 24 33 12 23 11 20 273 Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN MIN Real Real Real Real Real Real Total real county Share Early Human FSI value Number Number ranking ranking ranking rankin ranking ranking ranking of 3-18 school develop of of school share of 3- early LHDI g FSI number number education years leaving ment PCs/1000 sports 18 years school of of old rate Index pupils fields / old leaving PCs/100 sports popula value 1000 population rate 0 pupils fields/1 tion pupils 000 pupils MARAMURES 19 3 73 € 51,325,288 85 2 12 27 27 22 32 18 20 GORJ 18 2 73 € 48,595,312 74 2 15 28 28 27 9 20 20 BIHOR 18 1 71 € 75,874,420 78 1 20 41 21 13 16 13 20 COVASNA 18 4 71 € 30,802,640 83 2 14 8 17 39 28 29 21 DAMBOVITA 18 2 71 € 61,388,746 78 2 19 38 20 18 18 21 21 BUZAU 17 3 66 € 50,754,773 85 1 24 21 11 24 33 10 21 SIBIU 18 4 84 € 82,890,324 84 1 22 7 38 10 29 17 21 MEHEDINTI 17 3 65 € 33,396,987 78 1 26 20 9 36 19 5 22 GIURGIU 17 2 58 € 31,398,149 60 2 23 30 2 38 2 35 22 OLT 17 2 63 € 43,641,882 77 2 25 35 7 29 13 22 22 ILFOV 17 3 89 € 98,673,675 53 2 27 25 41 6 1 26 23 HARGHITA 18 3 71 € 40,216,722 97 2 16 19 18 31 39 36 23 TULCEA 18 4 65 € 36,731,848 95 2 21 9 8 35 38 39 23 CARAS-SEVERIN 17 3 70 € 38,483,934 79 1 29 18 16 33 22 6 24 SALAJ 19 2 69 € 26,708,356 95 2 11 34 15 41 37 37 24 DOLJ 16 3 73 € 82,248,090 68 2 35 14 26 11 4 33 25 274 Indicator / MAX MAX MIN MAX MIN MIN Real Real Real Real Real Real Total real county Share Early Human FSI value Number Number ranking ranking ranking rankin ranking ranking ranking of 3-18 school develop of of school share of 3- early LHDI g FSI number number education years leaving ment PCs/1000 sports 18 years school of of old rate Index pupils fields / old leaving PCs/100 sports popula value 1000 population rate 0 pupils fields/1 tion pupils 000 pupils BRASOV 16 4 87 € 107,515,774 73 1 38 10 39 5 8 12 25 BRAILA 16 4 72 € 45,398,317 80 1 34 3 22 28 24 15 25 ARAD 17 3 74 € 83,265,926 82 2 30 12 30 9 25 40 26 TIMIS 15 3 83 € 135,000,063 79 1 40 11 37 3 20 8 26 CONSTANTA 17 3 77 € 192,861,456 82 2 32 15 35 1 26 38 26 PRAHOVA 16 2 77 € 110,686,247 77 1 37 33 36 4 15 16 27 VALCEA 17 2 71 € 48,814,026 78 2 31 37 19 26 17 32 28 TELEORMAN 16 2 56 € 41,191,766 75 2 39 39 1 30 11 34 29 ALBA 17 3 76 € 49,575,409 101 2 28 23 32 25 41 25 29 ARGES 16 2 76 € 92,588,602 83 2 33 36 34 7 27 41 30 CLUJ 14 3 87 € 149,399,304 99 2 41 17 40 2 40 27 31 HUNEDOARA 16 3 75 € 58,826,240 92 2 36 26 31 19 36 31 31 275 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Educational Infrastructure = 0.4*Real Ranking Share of 3-18 Year Old Population + 0.1*Real Ranking Early School Leaving + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI + 0.1*Real Ranking Number of PCs per 1,000 pupils + 0.1*Real Ranking Number of Sports Fields per 1,000 pupils 276 Annex 18. Prioritization of funds allocation for cultural infrastructure, by county Indicator / MAX MAX MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Real Real Total county Number Number of Number Number LHDI FSI Value ranking ranking rankin ranking rankin ranking real of tourist of seats of public Value number number g number g LHDI FSI ranking museums arrivals in art libraries of of numbe of culture instituti museum tourist r of public ons arrivals seats libraries in art institu tions PRAHOVA 31 366276 540 82 77 110,686,247 3 4 26 6 35 4 11 TIMIS 29 279707 2602 67 83 135,000,063 6 7 2 16 37 3 11 CLUJ 22 344629 2543 68 87 149,399,304 14 5 3 15 39 2 11 SUCEAVA 30 241629 300 110 69 62,737,542 5 9 30 1 14 17 12 CONSTANTA 22 859634 916 37 77 192,861,456 13 1 13 36 36 1 12 IASI 20 183305 1582 89 73 91,551,487 15 12 7 5 27 8 13 MURES 14 394834 1752 56 76 78,846,776 22 3 4 24 34 12 13 BIHOR 12 252045 1240 51 71 75,874,420 23 8 10 29 20 13 14 VALCEA 20 211053 822 78 71 48,814,026 16 10 16 7 17 26 14 ARGES 27 149541 542 96 76 92,588,602 9 14 25 3 32 7 15 BRASOV 31 834979 2934 35 87 45,398,317 4 2 1 37 40 28 15 SIBIU 26 329986 1301 27 84 82,890,324 10 6 8 40 38 10 15 NEAMT 29 160707 156 75 68 50,936,785 7 13 34 10 13 23 16 277 Indicator / MAX MAX MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Real Real Total county Number Number of Number Number LHDI FSI Value ranking ranking rankin ranking rankin ranking real of tourist of seats of public Value number number g number g LHDI FSI ranking museums arrivals in art libraries of of numbe of culture instituti museum tourist r of public ons arrivals seats libraries in art institu tions ARAD 11 197300 864 59 74 83,265,926 24 11 14 21 30 9 16 BACAU 25 101826 613 75 68 73,412,500 11 20 24 9 12 14 16 HARGHITA 25 114717 1629 53 71 40,216,722 12 16 6 26 19 31 18 DOLJ 9 85847 1641 92 73 82,248,090 31 23 5 4 26 11 19 ALBA 56 101869 625 69 76 49,575,409 1 19 23 13 33 25 20 MARAMURES 19 109083 525 69 73 51,325,288 18 18 27 14 28 22 21 DAMBOVITA 28 74160 294 76 71 61,388,746 8 27 32 8 18 18 21 SATU MARE 16 93911 666 53 72 54,361,165 20 21 19 27 23 20 21 HUNEDOARA 16 88306 772 55 75 58,826,240 19 22 17 25 31 19 22 GALATI 11 70925 730 61 72 63,194,006 25 28 18 19 22 16 23 CARAS-SEVERIN 10 119070 140 40 70 38,483,934 30 15 35 34 16 33 23 GORJ 32 75125 200 62 73 48,595,312 2 26 33 18 29 27 24 BRAILA 8 57078 860 41 72 107,515,774 33 31 15 31 24 5 25 BOTOSANI 10 33349 658 72 60 53,873,908 27 38 20 11 4 21 25 BUZAU 10 63593 350 58 66 50,754,773 28 30 28 23 11 24 25 278 Indicator / MAX MAX MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Real Real Total county Number Number of Number Number LHDI FSI Value ranking ranking rankin ranking rankin ranking real of tourist of seats of public Value number number g number g LHDI FSI ranking museums arrivals in art libraries of of numbe of culture instituti museum tourist r of public ons arrivals seats libraries in art institu tions OLT 15 35678 0 99 63 43,641,882 21 34 39 2 7 29 25 ILFOV 6 109547 0 14 89 98,673,675 37 17 36 41 41 6 25 VRANCEA 20 34196 1285 65 66 37,280,671 17 36 9 17 10 34 25 BISTRITA- NASAUD 10 66335 650 41 72 68,872,541 26 29 21 32 25 15 26 TULCEA 8 80992 649 39 65 36,731,848 34 25 22 35 9 35 26 COVASNA 9 83468 1056 40 71 30,802,640 32 24 11 33 21 39 26 VASLUI 10 35190 300 71 60 39,516,919 29 35 31 12 5 32 27 MEHEDINTI 2 52323 0 59 65 33,396,987 41 32 37 22 8 36 29 IALOMITA 6 40189 0 52 61 32,283,622 38 33 38 28 6 37 30 GIURGIU 5 24983 1047 35 58 31,398,149 39 39 12 38 2 38 31 SALAJ 7 33367 335 61 69 26,708,356 36 37 29 20 15 41 32 TELEORMAN 7 13176 0 34 56 41,191,766 35 40 40 39 1 30 32 CALARASI 5 11035 0 42 59 30,130,047 40 41 41 30 3 40 34 279 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Cultural Infrastructure = 0.1*Real Ranking Number of Museums + 0.4*Real Ranking Number of Tourist Arrivals + 0.1*Real Ranking Number of Seats in Art Institutions + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI 280 Annex 19. Prioritization of funds allocation for sports infrastructure, by county Indicator / county MAX MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total real Share of Number Number of LHDI FSI Value ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking young of legitimated Value share of number number of HDI FSI sports population sports sportsmen young of sports legitimated clubs population clubs sports people TIMIS 32 373 10,031 83 135,000,063 3 1 2 37 3 8 IASI 35 262 7,427 73 91,551,487 1 7 6 29 8 8 CLUJ 31 363 10,561 87 149,399,304 5 2 1 40 2 9 SUCEAVA 32 175 5,116 69 62,737,542 2 14 20 15 17 11 BIHOR 30 222 6,137 71 75,874,420 13 9 10 21 13 13 BOTOSANI 31 110 4,281 60 53,873,908 6 29 25 5 21 14 MARAMURES 31 179 5,868 73 51,325,288 7 13 14 28 22 14 CONSTANTA 29 306 8,883 77 192,861,456 21 3 3 36 1 15 MURES 30 266 8,315 76 78,846,776 17 6 5 34 12 15 DAMBOVITA 30 169 5,414 71 61,388,746 14 16 15 19 18 16 BISTRITA-NASAUD 31 104 4,229 72 68,872,541 4 31 27 25 15 16 SIBIU 31 166 5,295 84 82,890,324 10 18 18 38 10 17 BACAU 30 161 4,588 68 73,412,500 15 20 23 13 14 17 HARGHITA 31 197 5,273 71 40,216,722 11 11 19 20 31 17 SATU MARE 31 136 4,119 72 54,361,165 9 25 28 24 20 18 281 Indicator / county MAX MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total real Share of Number Number of LHDI FSI Value ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking young of legitimated Value share of number number of HDI FSI sports population sports sportsmen young of sports legitimated clubs population clubs sports people DOLJ 29 248 7,260 73 82,248,090 27 8 7 27 11 19 GALATI 29 138 5,874 72 63,194,006 23 24 13 23 16 20 VASLUI 31 85 2,690 60 39,516,919 8 37 39 4 32 20 BRASOV 29 282 8,705 87 45,398,317 22 5 4 39 28 20 ARAD 29 192 5,999 74 83,265,926 28 12 11 30 9 20 ARGES 28 216 6,491 76 92,588,602 32 10 9 33 7 22 ILFOV 30 149 4,254 89 98,673,675 18 22 26 41 6 22 PRAHOVA 27 293 7,143 77 110,686,247 36 4 8 35 4 22 COVASNA 31 98 3,234 71 30,802,640 12 33 33 18 39 23 BUZAU 27 162 5,977 66 50,754,773 38 19 12 10 24 25 GORJ 30 104 3,033 73 48,595,312 16 32 36 26 27 25 CALARASI 29 82 3,088 59 30,130,047 19 39 35 3 40 25 NEAMT 28 114 3,765 68 50,936,785 29 28 29 12 23 25 ALBA 28 169 5,295 76 49,575,409 31 17 17 32 25 26 VRANCEA 29 96 3,283 66 37,280,671 24 34 32 11 34 26 OLT 28 143 3,526 63 43,641,882 33 23 30 7 29 27 GIURGIU 29 95 2,732 58 31,398,149 25 36 38 2 38 27 VALCEA 27 156 4,892 71 48,814,026 37 21 21 17 26 28 282 Indicator / county MAX MAX MAX MIN MAX Real Real Real Real Real Total real Share of Number Number of LHDI FSI Value ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking young of legitimated Value share of number number of HDI FSI sports population sports sportsmen young of sports legitimated clubs population clubs sports people IALOMITA 29 96 2,915 61 32,283,622 26 35 37 6 37 28 HUNEDOARA 26 173 5,356 75 58,826,240 39 15 16 31 19 28 BRAILA 26 105 4,342 72 107,515,774 40 30 24 22 5 28 TELEORMAN 25 132 4,765 56 41,191,766 41 26 22 1 30 28 CARAS-SEVERIN 28 115 3,452 70 38,483,934 30 27 31 16 33 28 SALAJ 29 74 2,279 69 26,708,356 20 40 40 14 41 28 MEHEDINTI 27 85 3,173 65 33,396,987 35 38 34 9 36 31 TULCEA 28 49 1,983 65 36,731,848 34 41 41 8 35 32 Legend Highest investments needs Medium-high investments needs Medium-low investment needs Lowest investment needs Note: The equation for calculating the Total Real Ranking for each county is as follows: Total Real Ranking Sports Infrastructure = 0.4*Real Ranking Share of Young Population + 0.1*Real Ranking Number of Sports Clubs + 0.2*Real Ranking Number of Legitimated Sports People + 0.15*Real Ranking LHDI + 0.15*Real Ranking FSI 283 Annex 20. Allocation by county of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for county roads (in mil. Euro) County County share 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL of total allocation (%) ALBA 2.50% 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.8 ARAD 2.61% 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.3 ARGES 2.85% 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 12.3 BACAU 2.77% 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 12.0 BIHOR 2.72% 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 11.7 BISTRITA- 2.47% 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.7 NASAUD BOTOSANI 2.47% 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.6 BRAILA 2.16% 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 9.3 BRASOV 2.69% 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.6 BUZAU 2.61% 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.3 CALARASI 2.40% 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 10.4 CARAS- 2.30% 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 9.9 SEVERIN CLUJ 2.88% 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 12.4 CONSTANTA 2.68% 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.6 COVASNA 2.02% 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 8.7 284 County County share 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL of total allocation (%) DAMBOVITA 2.47% 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.7 DOLJ 2.62% 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.3 GALATI 2.51% 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.9 GIURGIU 2.19% 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 9.5 GORJ 2.18% 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 9.4 HARGHITA 2.44% 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 10.6 HUNEDOARA 2.68% 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.6 IALOMITA 2.14% 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 9.2 IASI 2.91% 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 12.6 ILFOV 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MARAMURES 2.56% 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 11.1 MEHEDINTI 2.39% 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 10.3 MURES 2.48% 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.7 NEAMT 2.56% 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 11.1 OLT 2.46% 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.6 PRAHOVA 2.58% 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 11.1 SALAJ 2.14% 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 9.2 SATU MARE 2.37% 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 10.2 SIBIU 2.65% 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.4 SUCEAVA 2.84% 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 12.2 285 County County share 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL of total allocation (%) TELEORMAN 2.53% 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 10.9 TIMIS 2.71% 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.7 TULCEA 2.11% 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 9.1 VALCEA 2.39% 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 10.3 VASLUI 2.58% 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 11.1 VRANCEA 2.40% 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 10.4 TOTAL 100.00 53.0 55.7 58.5 61.4 64.5 67.7 71.1 431.9 Note: The allocation of fund by county was done by following the steps below: 1. Determining county weights based on the Total Real Ranking, as follows: County Weight for County i = 100 – Total Real Ranking for County i 2. Determining percentage share for each county: Percentage Share for County i = [(County weight for County i)/(County weight for County 1 + County weight for County 2 + … + County weight for County n)]*100 3. Determining PNDL allocation of funds by county and by sector: PNDL Funding Allocation for County Roads for County i = (Percentage Share for County i)*(PNDL Funding Allocation for County Roads for 2014 - 2020) 286 Annex 21. Allocation by county of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for communal roads (in mil. Euro) County County share 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL of total allocation (%) ALBA 2.47% 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 17.8 ARAD 2.43% 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 17.5 ARGES 2.91% 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.5 21.0 BACAU 2.89% 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 20.8 BIHOR 2.92% 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.5 21.0 BISTRITA- NASAUD 2.36% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 17.0 BOTOSANI 2.77% 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 19.9 BRAILA 2.06% 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 14.8 BRASOV 2.21% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 15.9 BUZAU 2.87% 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 20.6 CALARASI 2.25% 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 16.2 CARAS- SEVERIN 2.13% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 15.3 CLUJ 2.63% 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 18.9 CONSTANTA 2.60% 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 18.7 287 County County share 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL of total allocation (%) COVASNA 2.01% 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 14.4 DAMBOVITA 2.66% 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 19.1 DOLJ 2.75% 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 19.8 GALATI 2.38% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 17.2 GIURGIU 2.28% 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 16.4 GORJ 2.39% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 17.2 HARGHITA 2.56% 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 18.4 HUNEDOARA 2.42% 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 17.4 IALOMITA 2.19% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 15.8 IASI 2.83% 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 20.4 ILFOV 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MARAMURES 2.34% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 16.9 MEHEDINTI 2.34% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 16.8 MURES 2.62% 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 18.9 NEAMT 2.71% 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 19.5 OLT 2.69% 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 19.4 PRAHOVA 2.59% 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 18.6 SALAJ 2.33% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 16.7 288 County County share 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL of total allocation (%) SATU MARE 2.31% 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 16.6 SIBIU 2.15% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 15.4 SUCEAVA 2.93% 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.5 21.1 TELEORMAN 2.45% 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 17.6 TIMIS 2.72% 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 19.6 TULCEA 2.21% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 15.9 VALCEA 2.62% 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 18.8 VASLUI 2.66% 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 19.1 VRANCEA 2.39% 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 17.2 TOTAL 100.00 88.4 92.8 97.5 102.3 107.5 112.8 118.5 719.8 Note: The allocation of fund by county was done by following the steps below: 1. Determining county weights based on the Total Real Ranking, as follows: County Weight for County i = 100 – Total Real Ranking for County i 2. Determining percentage share for each county: Percentage Share fo r County i = [(County weight for County i)/(County weight for County 1 + County weight for County 2 + … + County weight for County n)]*100 3. Determining PNDL allocation of funds by county and by sector: PNDL Funding Allocation for Communal Roads for County i = (Percentage Share for County i)*(PNDL Funding Allocation for Communal Roads for 2014-2020) 289 Annex 22. Allocation by water region of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for water and wastewater infrastructure (in mil. Euro) County Regional 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL share of total allocation (%) ALBA 2.69% 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 38.7 ARAD 2.49% 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 35.8 ARGES 2.90% 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.9 41.7 ARIES 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BACAU 2.95% 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.3 6.7 7.0 42.5 BIHOR 2.63% 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.9 6.2 37.9 BISTRITA NASAUD 2.31% 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 33.2 BOTOSANI 2.69% 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 38.7 BRAILA 2.42% 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.7 34.8 BRASOV 2.81% 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.4 6.7 40.5 BUZAU 2.78% 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.6 40.0 CALARASI 2.41% 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.7 34.7 CARAS SEVERIN 2.53% 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.7 6.0 36.5 CLUJ-SALAJ 3.42% 6.0 6.3 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.7 8.1 49.2 CONSTANTA- IALOMITA 4.16% 7.3 7.7 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.8 59.8 COVASNA 2.39% 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.7 34.4 290 County Regional 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL share of total allocation (%) DAMBOVITA 2.54% 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 6.0 36.6 DOLJ 2.74% 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.5 39.4 GALATI 2.71% 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 39.0 GIURGIU 2.63% 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.9 6.2 37.9 GORJ 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HARGHITA 2.41% 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.7 34.7 HUNEDOARA 2.40% 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.7 34.6 IASI 2.97% 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.0 42.7 ILFOV 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MARAMURES 2.70% 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 38.9 MEHEDINTI 2.44% 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 35.1 MURES 2.83% 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 40.7 NEAMT 2.73% 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.5 39.4 OLT 2.68% 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.3 38.5 PRAHOVA 2.88% 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 41.4 SATU MARE 2.71% 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.4 39.0 SIBIU 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUCEAVA 2.96% 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.0 42.6 TARNAVE 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TELEORMAN 2.77% 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.6 39.8 291 County Regional 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL share of total allocation (%) TIMIS 2.88% 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 41.4 TULCEA 2.43% 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 34.9 VALCEA 2.69% 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 38.8 VALEA JIULUI 2.16% 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.1 31.1 VASLUI 2.71% 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.4 39.1 VRANCEA 2.46% 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.8 35.4 TOTAL 100.00 176.82 185.66 194.94 204.69 214.92 225.67 236.95 1439.65 Note: The allocation of fund by county was done by following the steps below: 1. Determining county weights based on the Total Real Ranking, as follows: County Weight for County i = 100 – Total Real Ranking for County i 2. Determining percentage share for each county: Percentage Share for County i = [(County weight for County i)/(County weight for County 1 + County weight for County 2 + … + County weight for County n)]*100 3. Determining PNDL allocation of funds by county and by sector: PNDL Funding Allocation for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure for County i = (Percentage Share for County i)*(PNDL Funding Allocation for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure for 2014-2020) 292 Annex 23. Allocation by county of PNDL 2014-2020 proposed budget for social infrastructure (in mil. Euro) County County share of 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL total allocation (%) ALBA 2.38% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.8 ARAD 2.45% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 ARGES 2.46% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 BACAU 2.58% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 7.4 BIHOR 2.54% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.3 BISTRITA- NASAUD 2.44% 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 7.0 BOTOSANI 2.58% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 7.4 BRAILA 2.34% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.7 BRASOV 2.47% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 BUZAU 2.37% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.8 CALARASI 2.35% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.8 CARAS- SEVERIN 2.41% 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.9 CLUJ 2.56% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 7.4 CONSTANTA 2.48% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 COVASNA 2.42% 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 7.0 DAMBOVITA 2.44% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 7.0 293 County County share of 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL total allocation (%) DOLJ 2.46% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 GALATI 2.47% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 GIURGIU 2.24% 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 6.4 GORJ 2.40% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.9 HARGHITA 2.45% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.0 HUNEDOARA 2.37% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.8 IALOMITA 2.34% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.7 IASI 2.66% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 7.7 ILFOV 2.36% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.8 MARAMURES 2.47% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 MEHEDINTI 2.31% 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 6.7 MURES 2.58% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 7.4 NEAMT 2.50% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.2 OLT 2.39% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.9 PRAHOVA 2.43% 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 7.0 SALAJ 2.29% 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 6.6 SATU MARE 2.40% 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.9 SIBIU 2.53% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.3 SUCEAVA 2.63% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 7.6 TELEORMAN 2.27% 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 6.5 294 County County share of 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL total allocation (%) TIMIS 2.58% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 7.4 TULCEA 2.24% 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 6.4 VALCEA 2.44% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 7.0 VASLUI 2.47% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 VRANCEA 2.46% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 TOTAL 100.00 35.4 37.1 39.0 40.9 43.0 45.1 47.4 287.9 Note: The allocation of fund by county was done by following the steps below: 1. Determining county weights based on the Total Real Ranking, as follows: County Weight for County i = 100 – Total Real Ranking for County i 2. Determining percentage share for each county: Percentage Share for County i = [(County weight for County i)/(County weight for County 1 + County weight for County 2 + … + County weight for County n)]*100 3. Determining PNDL allocation of funds by county and by sector: PNDL Funding Allocation for Social Infrastructure for County i = (Percentage Share for County i)*(PNDL Funding Allocation for Social Infrastructure for 2014-2020) 295