I would concur with that tri-focus of accrued investments. Let me in my own words say that, for whatever part of a project, particularly a public project that would not have otherwise been built or would have been built with less public money, the amount of equity financing may attract a higher rate of return, and there was clearly a corresponding efficiency benefit or other accrued benefit to that amount.
Clearly, everything will be calibrated in a way to justify. If there's a higher return than just borrowing, it means you're getting something from that. If it was merely on the tax base, that means the municipality bears all the risk and it's all embedded over the long run, and it's not always comparable when you use those two figures, what I would say, inappropriately.