The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Utilities Committee 2006-04-20JACA # E AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8 a.m. Thursday, April 20,2006 Preparation date: 4/14/06 ACTION ITEMS Ff PUBLIC COMMENT Light & Power Department 1. L&P Operating Plan - Budget Item â€¢ Request approval to: â€¢ a) purchase Arcview software upgrade â€¢ b) proceed with Loveland/PRPA/Estes Joint Agency electrical system modeling 2. Annual Tree Trimming â€¢ Request to Proceed Water Department No action items REPORTS Light and Power 1. Light & Power Financial Reports Water 1. Water Department Financial Reports Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . '. bah- 10 -hp Laserjet 3015 1/Ta , HP LASERJET FAX invent Apr-18-2006 8:04AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 497 4/18/2006 7:59:34AM Send 5869561 0:38 1 OK 498 4/18/2006 8:00:17AM Send 5869532 0:48 1 OK 499 4/18/2006 8:01:10AM Send 5861691 0:54 1 OK 500 4/18/2006 8:02:09AM Send 6353677 0:50 1 OK 501 4/18/2006 8:03:04AM Send 5771590 0:57 1 OK . TOWN of ESTES PARK 4- Inter-Office Memorandum April 17, 2006 TO: Utilities Committe 44 FROM: Bill Linnane SUBJECT: Approval - L&P Operating Plan - Budget Item Background: Marys Lake Substation System Upgrade Preliminary Engineering Agreement The main components of the 2006 operating plan are modeling and preliminary design of Marys Lake Substation & electrical systems. We will be coordinating with our financial consultant towards the end of May but the electric system model needs to be complete by budget time. Bob Miller, Loveland Utilities Operations Manager and staff have been preparing an intergovernmental agreement where Loveland assists with the Estes modeling, etc., & preliminary design work above. They have now provided a rough draft of our agreement we are working on. Greg White is reviewing. The fees are very reasonable. Electrical consulting firms charge $120/hr for their services versus Loveland's $77/hr. Staff recommends approval of the fee structure attached and getting the final agreement complete as soon as possible. The estimated man-hours are approximately 500 and the model, as well as other minor technical plans, should be completed by September. Arcuiew Software Upgrade Loveland uses Arcview software models. To be compatible with similar software so we can manipulate the model for outages and system improvements, we need to purchase the same software. The current estimate is $18,000/3 arc-type software. Cost/Budget: Cost: Loveland $35,000 Arcview Software $18,000 Total $53,000 Budget: $75,000 The remaining budget will provide for PRPA/Loveland personnel design costs for the proposed 2008 Marys Lake Substation System Upgrade Project. Action: Staff requests approval. BL/mjs EMCIZ_=====t sia CO 21 ls# liia i 9 url a Im 52 r 2 Cfr C~ ~ - CE I Â¢ 111 *w,r'' =61 9 0 11 nal] 81 iN I i 05 0 .111 8 C LU N 91* 1 -60 EL::;11 0 1/ , 4, k 7 6 -1 . . L 1 / W @ tj 3 1\ i M 1111 96'Â£22 - ~31_ Jr-9 4-9u-=1-*9 .6Â£.,9.19 S - - - 7 1 r 1 - fi s - *11 . / fil@,1 MEESE- & 3 69 8 89 ~ w 81 \8 le w /1 W %5 1 19 A ?â€ž-r-1* iii M li 1 0 ... 1; .a,7i 84.+-4 Â£ 1% 2 ' , L UL' 2 77: ~ M 1 o i ./-7. 0 1 r , * Zlf> 8/!i ~30;.r~ i:you c .-r.. :fr K'. 8 4 1 le Batte, 4 - _ 4 0 191 = 1 ., I 9 1 13\ 4 6479 0 ~ 1 ..m U' 1 8 4 iki Â·eo 9r"94, 1... 0 U FE M.n-1 - d il / 5/ . a / /401 , /\ -* . 8 'fi'1-1// Z / 41 F- 8.ooto l 3.Of.la N b 0 e e 1 1 1 1 11 k ,? 4 5.Or,ri 15 1% 0.0 + :512% &4 h Af *f 25 1.. 1 -' A. .DO}ol â€¢002-68/01 VO@ H 0013SMOH '3 3 'SN!1103 ddi >13 18 inSSI 30 080333 GNâ€¢ SNOISIA]a -ON 01Â·'CgiÂ· SC@*Dla <113/0 ~6Â· LKâ€¢ CYâ€¢!â€¢li ILL Â£33706 4311â€¢ Al IN0H1AV ]MOd 3]Al -- PAVED ROAD TO ESTES PARK 44 " o. 2<24'45- E '8~ 4 -6- '38- 124 1 . vu ou. l Â·Ln '-Nd. *.t~ 4-0 1.- + 4, d- 04 44 41 Ou) 6%1 3/17/2006 71Rt?/4 Prtw~ 31*1/' Â· Mary s Lake Switchqear ana Irarrstormer Replacement Estimate 2008 QTY Price Total Transformers 2 $800,000 $1,600,000 Foundation 2 $20,000 $40,000 Oil containment 2 $10,000 $20,000 Circuit Switcher 2 $35,000 $70,000 +- Foundation 2 $5,000 $10,000 Switch 2 $5,500 $11,000 4----- Foundation 2 $4,000 $8,000 Switchgear Isle 1 $650,000 $650,000 av~-- Foundation 1 $50,000 $50,000 Construction 1 1-8 D .wb +4*I : 2,459, Â©00 Removal of transformers 2 -1>OAAâ€¢- BA~. k,Â·Lo.C C Â©,T Removal of building 1 -T-8,1 4- 1 ~-4 4-WI Cm vt Â·S g '11 . 4 old CS removal 2 Te-2 Q Q,vie X FLOK& 11- C. %#p. 4# Contingency 1 T 6'D PRPA cost & misc work 1: 71Â¥P TOTAL MAL. S <V\,6 1#1*b:-r, 44 Fral- 6,+7 +41 419'*oo 4 . 1.4 1,0 \0Â¥ h...C- 47 1 f B ?4 L 004- CRAnd EXHIBIT A Loveland shall provide Estes Park with services, equipment, and materials provided by Loveland's electric utility, as well as related administrative support services (collectively, "Services"), on an as-needed basis as requested by Estes Park. Said Services shall include, without limitation, the following: Personnel or Equipment Rate / Hour Overtime Rate / Hour Electrical Engineer $77 NLA GIS Specialist $55 9. '$34 - Administrative Specialist $31 Â·h JO $42 Tree Trimmer $39 ,.Â« 1 $45.21 â‚¬.4. Ground Worker $29 ' Â·4 03:.Â·30 Aerial Lift $1,8~*224 " N/AL, . . 0 Chipper Unit NA im :.. 4 *h. : The parties shall negotiate the hourly rate for all Servi@*not specifically listed above which are requested by Estes Park and provided by Loveland undâ‚¬M~fAgreement. All such negotiated rates and costs shall be reduced to a writing signed by the parties and shall be made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. F ~4*-f- Estes Park understands and agrees that, not*ithstanding allything;erein to the contrary, it shall be responsible for actual costs incurred by-Loveland inl ptoviding the Services to Estes Park under this Agreement. Este&-Park further understands and kgrees that the hourly rates set forth above are valid for 20)46;Tiâ„¢d=that Loveland shall sup#lement this Exhibit A on an annual basis to update said ratek.{or the theh-current year~Â· Said supplement shall be made a part of this Agreement as if ful19 sbt.f@rth herein. - . . Ir i.P'. \ i h.b .\ . 11 2 I ..44 .... / 11% /4 8. Page 5 of 5 A /.\ )99513* k Section 2 COMPENSATION AND SCHEDULE Upon authorization to proceed, R. W Beck would be available to begin work within a one week time period. Based on our experience in performing other studies similar in nature to the work scope and plan included in this proposal, we propose to provide the services set forth in Tasks 1 through 7 as described in Section 1 for an e,timated cost of $25,000 to $30,000, which includes both labor and expenses incurred during the project. As previously stated, we are willing to discuss revisions to the project scope and resulting cost adjustments to meet your needs. It is assumed that there will be three meetings during the project and that the required data will be reasonably available. Upon submission of monthly invoices, the Client shall pay the Consultant an amount equal to the actual hours of services furnished by the individuals working directly on the assignment, multiplied by the Consultants established hourly rate for each individual. The pocket expenses directly chargeable to the work and for use of Client will reimburse the Consultant each month at cost for all out-of- computer and reproduction facilities at the then current rates. The billing rates of the key. personnel identified for this project are shown below. Tim Corrigan - Â£210.19 Rich Law $63.05 Stuart Jordan $165.60 St â‚¬Lt=Â£1 <In 1 - Wayne Miller $119.42 â‚¬le c.-i + c.1.~9 Joni Batson $102.98 Paul Mullen $59.23 Ottis Jones $151.32 Larry Largent $59.23 Additionally, we envision that the set-up of the system model will be conducted by our technicians in the Nashville and Denver offices. Individual billing rates for these personnel are available at your request. 3P0585-2 R. W Beck 2-1 FW: Town of Estes Park Transformer Data from 1999-2005 Page 1 of 1 Bill Linnane From: Dahl, Mike [DahIM@prpa.org] Sent: Friday, December 16,2005 2:32 PM To: Bill Linnane Subject: FW: Town of Estes Park Transformer Data from 1999-2005 Hi. For the upcoming work on your Operating Plan, I asked Sue Little of our staff to assemble the history of Estes Park loads for the last 6 years. 2005 isn't quite complete so we will finish that information in January. The first file is peak load (not coincident on Platte River's Peak) for each of the big substation transformers at Estes and Marys Lake Substations. The second file is total energy each month plus the coincident and non-coincident peaks by substation for the whole town. If you have any questions or want any older data, please let me know. Merry Christmas to you and Bob. mhd From: Little, Sue Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:25 PM To: Dahl, Mike Subject: Town of Estes Park Transformer Data from 1999-2005 Hi, Mike...... I'm attaching Excel files with the data you requested for the Town of Estes Park. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, changes, etd <<Estes Park Non-Coinc Transformer Data.xls>> <<Estes Park Load History 1999.xls>> Hope you have (or had....by the time you read this) a great weekend! Sue Sue Little Power Scheduler Platte River Power Authority (970) 229-5224 1/31/2006 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. 1 ' Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 1999 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 6,204 5,239 3,522 5,556 February 5,725 4,761 3,364 4,913 March 5,746 4,441 3,001 4,948 April 5,990 4,539 3,105 5,250 May 5,671 4,072 2,949 5,193 June 5,777 4,228 3,563 3,923 July 5,751 4,317 6,575 2 3,381 August 5,651 4,254 6,091 2 5,581 3 September 5,944 4,487 3,577 4,058 October 5,590 4,671 3,485 4,372 November 6,310 5,095 3,537 5,256 December 6,379 5,374 3,496 5,365 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Some load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 7/29/99 at 15:00 -- 8/3/99 @ 14:00 3 Some load transferred from Marys Lake 1 8/3/99 at 15:00 - 8/4/99 @ 14:00 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Estes Park A Estes Park B Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. i Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 2000 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 6,129 5,170 3,407 7,600 2 February 5,875 4,965 3,249 4,761 March 5,763 4,596 5,365 4,424 April 3,300 4,257 5,472 3,211 5,152 4,020 May 3 26 5,630 6,134 4,841 3,848 June 5,573 4,565 3,522 3,649 Jul 10,037 3 10,008 4 3,226 5,357 August 10,037 5 4,709 3,084 3,272 September 8,381 5,400 3,992 4,447 October 5,760 4,925 3,433 4,090 November 6,538 5,731 3,635 5,161 December 6,638 5,904 3,675 5,651 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 1/7/00 10:00-15:00 3 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on Dll/00 10:00-15:00 4 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 7/12/00 10:00-15:00 5 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on 8/3/00 10:00-15:00 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-CoinC. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 2001 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 6,235 5,458 3,479 5,031 February 9,778 2 5,558 3,398 5,100 March 9,115 3 4,954 3,191 4,513 April 5,630 4,997 2,834 3,894 May 5,558 4,464 3,047 3,750 June 5,702 4,550 3,436 3,897 July 6,077 4,781 3,254 3,191 August 5,947 4,766 3,326 3,444 September 5,789 4,910 3,825 4,020 October 5,544 4,680 3,249 3,900 November 6,221 5,530 3,442 5,028 December 11,131 4 5,659 6,129 5 6,454 6 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on 2/12/01 10:00-14:00 3 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on 3/6/01 10:00-14:00 4 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on 12/10/01 18:00-21:00 5 Load transferred from Marys Lake 2 on 12/18/01 13:00-14:00 6 Load transferred from Marys Lake 1 on 12/18/01 10:00-11:00 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. i Non-Coinc. i Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 2002 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 6,667 5,630 7,620 2 5,331 February 6,278 5,414 3,732 5,164 March 6,336 5,875 4,003 5,221 April 6,019 4,608 3,208 4,130 May 5,832 4,205 3,332 3,672 June 5,947 4,306 3,070 3,275 July 6,422 4,464 3,185 3,312 August 6,293 4,320 6,039 3 3,534 September 5,947 4,550 3,295 3,266 October 6,984 9,144 4 3,554 4,847 November 7,286 12,096 5 3,655 3,344 December 8,266 6,336 4,020 3,888 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Load transferred from Marys Lake 2 on 1/22/02 @ 10:00 -- 1/23/01 @ 15:00 3 Load transferred from Marys Lake 2 on 8/16/02 @ 10:00 -- 8/22/02 @ 12:00 4 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 10/3/02 12:00-14:00 5 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 11/15/02 @ 15:00 - 11/16/02 @ 11:00 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-CoinG. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 2003 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 7,358 11,203 2 3,663 3,398 February 7,661 6,034 3,804 3,413 March 7,229 5,918 4,576 3,180 April 6,941 5,069 4,190 2,759 May 6,682 5,141 4,179 2,710 June 5,544 10,498 3 3,413 2,529 July 6,034 6,062 3,341 2,508 August 5,976 10,267 4 3,724 2,514 September 6,408 6,725 3,643 2,701 October 6,667 6,394 3,387 3,061 November 7,056 6,998 3,980 3,787 December 7,848 7,488 4,412 4,432 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 1/30/03 10:00-11:00 3 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 6/19/03 10:00-17:00 4 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 8/26/03 @ 19:00 -- 8/27/03 @ 17:00 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 2004 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 7,848 7,402 4,136 4,139 February 7,330 6,739 3,836 3,554 March 6,178 6,005 3,514 3,131 April 6,278 5,861 3,191 2,796 May 6,264 5,645 3,692 2,860 June 5,976 6,019 3,790 2,750 July 5,890 6,149 5,466 2 =4,954 3 August 5,861 6,048 3,545 2,557 September 10,224 4 10,022 5 3,741 2,796 October 6,091 6,120 5,037 6 2,883 November 7,272 7,258 3,764 3,761 December 8,136 7,963 4,421 4,380 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Load transferred from Marys Lake 2 on 7/7/04 @ 10:00 -- 7/8/04 @ 14:00 3 Load transferred from Marys Lake 1 on 7/19/04 11:00-17:00 4 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on 9/2/04 @ 11:00-13:00 5 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 9/8/04 @ 10:00-12:00 6 Load transferred from Marys Lake 2 on 10/20/04 @ 10:00 - 10/22/04 @ 10:00 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Estes Park 1 Estes Park 2 Marys Lake 1 Marys Lake 2 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Non-Coinc. 1 Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand 2005 (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) January 7,358 7,301 3,879 3,715 February 6,682 6,494 3,531 3,131 March 6,768 6,408 3,580 3,298 April 5,962 5,904 3,508 2,863 May 5,846 6,149 3,836 2,851 June 6,091 5,947 3,902 3,093 July 6,034 6,278 3,715 2,572 August 5,904 6,048 3,882 2,678 September 9,792 2 9,749 3 3,335 2,411 October 5,846 5,846 3,280 2,796 November December 1 Non-Coincident with Platte River System Peak Demand 2 Load transferred from Estes Park 2 on 9/13/05 10:00 -11:00 3 Load transferred from Estes Park 1 on 9/13/05 12:00-13:00 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum April 17, 2006 TO: Bill Linnane 4 Affi Â»fl FROM: Mike Mangelsen SUBJECT: Tree Trimming of Overhead Power Lines 2006 & 2007 (2 yr contract) Background: The Light and Power Fund, page 253, contains $70,000/ year for the purpose of trimming trees that lying in or near the overhead power lines. This is a continual process which benefits the system through increased reliability and safety. An RFP for this service was sent to (4) contractors. Amounts are based on 800 hrs. (2) person crew. Cost/Budget: Cost: 1) Asplundh Tree Expert Year 2006: $58,608 Year 2007: $60,656 2) Wright Tree Service Year 2006: $74,056 Year: 2007: $75,280 3) Foothills Tree Experts Year 2006: $142,400 Year 2007: $148,800 4) Davey Tree Surgery Company- (NO BID) Budget: $70,000/ year Action: Staff recommends that we contract with "Asplundh Tree Expert" for years 2006 & 2007 for the amounts specified. MM/mjs 1-1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Asplundh Tree Co It is our recommendation that we utilize a two man aerial lift crew with a 4X4 pickup truck. We can reduce the cost of an extra trimmer while still maintaining a high level of productivity. 2006 STRAIGHT TIME OVERTIME FOREMAN $28.00 $39.20 TRIMMER 21.81 30.53 AERIAL LIFT 12.00 12.00 CHIPPER UNIT 2.50 2.50 4X4 PICKUP 8.95 8.95 $73.26 per hour $93.18 x 800 hours $58,608.00 STRAIGHT TIME OVERTIME 2007 FOREMAN $28.98 $40.57 TRIMMER 22.57 31.60 AERIAL LIFT 12.42 12.42 CHIPPER UNIT 2.59 2.59 4X4 PICKUP 9.26 9.26 $75.82 $96.44 x 800 hours $60,656.00 MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND 26,500 - 24,500 22,500 -0- 2004 -~â€¢-2005 20,500 - 2006 18,500 16,500 14,500 - 12,500 - ' ' Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTHLY ENERGY PURCHASES 12,000 -3< A 44 - E 8 00 0 4 - i 7 2 , i: M 415. -L 10,000 -3~ ---~f --Ji - 4 L. / k 4 4 3 E 4 9 1 2 2% r 0: 3 1% 4% m *4 - m m # 9 4 AE m 2004 fl .% 8,000 -,% -%4 /1 %4 R Li . 02005 014 m" 2 3% fl 3 -- ./ 4 , 02006 g 6,000 - 4% i. H ./ r/0 /34 32 0% 1 4 :: 1 IN / 1 4% *4 & A 3% A , I. "4.218.0.Li 4,000 4 -01 -R *t 34 3 .~ 4 01 9% 54 %1: 5% 4 0 *iE /: 4Â· Â· 0 A 44 04 2 41 23 04 4: A e 34 5% 4.4 *3 f* 41 41 2 4 4 + 06: 44 9% go 0% 3% 0% 04 Â£* 22: *4 5% 5.2 4% 2,000 41 , 4 6 1 7,5, , LA , :Al , 3Â§ 12 1 393: , .*?i 53 3 , 301 , *-fi , 4% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 6 Monthly MWH SYSTEM KW laaÂ®*eaaÂ», 1 #H,Nwim \**NON<*NON+ZeN*\ i i j Â»35313 \RÂ«\ '44 dgm:ztm:***~awdm \\ \\\\\\\ Ca\\\\\\\\\\N:#P\PAWA#*H.# NON'>NX \****NON -6*101Â·mmm,Â·Â·Ak#68656#A#~ 03%33*23**EME}b 44 +AN Â·141 +11,46/1111Â¥177719, YTD ENERGY PURCHASES 120,000 100,000 A 80,000 - 3.98% YTD 2006 VS Z-It M / N g 2005 â‚¬ 5* 0 0 0- ~ A 2004 72 /IE di:. fÂ·-E 60,000 "m %% * 5% E 52 E N2005 MI Bil 30 #1 % 3/ min 02006 . Â£1 2 0 mi # E 40,000 20,000 - i 4% 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Jan YTD POWER COST vs. BUDGET ($1,000) MBUDGET Â¤ACTUAL 5,000 4,500 W 4,000 W " 3,500 3,000 E5%% 2,500 E 2,000 m f EFF-3- 1,500 .1503 *E* 1,000 500 A V lili I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 7 imm=%242. Fdz/riff.4 YTD MWH Purchased 1 i ****N \ ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH ($1,000) 1,200 1,100 1,000 - 900 ---9 - 800 -~ -4 1 0 m 2004 65: % 4 - 2 - m 2005 02006 1 . 4.* ./ G Â¥ :i.X 2 11 1 k 600 -8 - 5* -1 6 im A fi QU- 5 6 49 4 0 11 1 = 59 )* 22 54 23 34 2* ti *t tt fi 2% fi 23 TR << 2> 9% .3 58 59 41 3% 31 C. 12 St 9% /4 %2 .4 24 k# 4% >4 '* h . 13 14 5. 4% *U 0% 49 $1 Â¢3 3% 300 9% 'hy '14 ,}3 '12 '15 14Â£ 141 'it 'fb ,14 ,14 , Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR TO DATE ELECTRIC SALES ($1,000) 10,000 10,138,000 9,000 17.53% 2006 YTD 8,000 VS 2005 7,000 - 0 2004 17 ./ d 6,000 - ZE] 2005 .i :- .J i . 5,000 - 02006 - Un-,1-~~---.~1 4-,3- 1, 3 d . Â·Â· Ti / 4 - < 1 3,000 _ 7{ 1#-t-'-4.t - 41 <P M. M , 3 4 3 , 2,000 i. < Th ..< 4, 4 i 411 6Â· Â·411 3:1 <9 7 51 5< 4 9 1,000 -rdl i .3% :pi-kt' ..,-Â·C~,-Â·Â·Â·-./ 'I-,4 - '- 5- - Â· :%/ 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 8 YEAR TO DATE SALES MONTHLY SALES 1 . 4../ 4. I :'/ 5 73 <Â·~ "I <t, t. 6 2 5 ae a= a= a= 22223232 0 40 8 g=g N~~~M~ E- 0 - 2Â§ U 0 R E E * h g 2.:2. rÂ·. n.'o el - â‚¬44 * -00 -Â©W 000 4 m al %% cdo 000000 MEE**E g 00Â©000 O 000000 1 2 2 g S: Â° 00-OB-=r: -re,M N C , W 0 A M 1% - 0 0 â‚¬ fil - g m 8.8 3 %.1 /7 2 2.8 3 4 2 2 9 12 1 DOE ..O-00<0 H 0 - -1 1 1 N .S , : 0. 8 2 01 r Z gs /9 U U C C U E Br 2 B & mm 1- W O %O OOE'gOE 0000.0 0000'0 D)!Ajos lea %51 ZOO'641 L09'686 6500'0 9000'0 (9Â£Â£'*5) Â£9â‚¬09 LEI'9 liglideo %042 0Â£Â£'LZE Â£Â£1'696 ELOO'O DZ.00*0 906' I 608'*L k 1L'9L ino S.IOJSUE.11 Suile.I@do %*E 806'L9*'Z 5 I 5'OL*'01 8+80 0 I6L0'0 (6L9'6t) 908'L98 LZI'818 salm'puodxa imol MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE ssets - liabilities) $10,811,188 $10,811,188 inning unr (usable) fund balance 3,119,729 $2,748,086 $2,748,086 807,518 831,209 23,691 0.0781 81 9,741,005 2,762,565 17,940 49,983 32,043 17 397,863 65,681 825,458 881,192 55,734 0.0798 . 861 10,138,868 2,828,246 412,679 404,377 8,302 .0395 4,702,000 1,312,976 176,775 174 933 357,172 istrationand Ge~ceco~nts 46,468 59,519 169,401 DEZ' I 51 Â»'Â£6 LEE'66 Â£6L L5'I60'Z 9 *'9Â£1'8 4 5'ZEL 98Z'SEL osuodx3 00UEUMUIWIN pue uon 8Â£Â£'09Â£ (09'IED 550'9 98Â£'El IEE'L (le}!deo wojaq som,!puodxo (iniI'6) V/N (8Â£5'51) (8Â£5251) SjOlneS 10410 01 po}BooliEROA!0001 4683 I 6*'69Â£ (L,9,1EE) (Â£8*'6) (2SI'Z) Iff'L Uoul Jo; UOU!sod Ilseo uy oSuetIo LLS'LII'ES 62*'9 I f'ZS LLS'L I I'Â£$ joueleq punJ @Iqesn) poloulsolun Suipug MAR VARIANCE Per kWh Per kWh Budget 2005 2006 2006 H FLOW COMPARISON JOAO SonUOAN Jo Xougplop/ss@OXEI) imolqns LIGHT AND POWER FUND Revenues TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER TRENDS Type Summary Date March-06 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of Avg Avg Avg # ofaccts KWH Growth Revenues Total Rev % Cum Rev/KWH KWWCust Rev/Cust Residential 7,296 3,788,253 0.0% $335,081 42% 42% $0.0888 519 $45.88 Gen Serv Small 1,556 2,020,814 -0.6% $177,050 22% 64% $0.0878 1,298 $113.75 Gen Serv Large 90 2,771,286 -0.1% $168,602 21% 85% $0.0610 30,636 $1,864.67 Residential Demand 414 771,979 -0.1% $66,198 8% 93% $0.0890 1,876 $160.77 Res Energy / Time of Day 226 402,159 1.4% $23,784 3% 96% $0.0606 1,770 $104.69 Municipal 61 251,389 -0.2% $19,281 2% 99% $0.0767 4,128 $316.64 RMNP - Small Admin 19 65,115 -0.8% $2,937 0% 99% $0.0452 3,427 $154.60 RMNP - Large Admin 6 63,901 1.1% $2,562 0% 99% $0.0405 10,650 $427.01 Wind Power 98 0 $2,087 0% 100% N/A 0 $21.22 Res Basic Energy 11 16,350 1.9% $1,352 0% 100% $0.0836 1,424 $117.85 GSS - Comml - Energy TOD 13 17,396 1.6% $1,139 0% 100% $0.0660 1,338 $87.56 GSL - Comml - Time of Day 1 10,415 -0.4% $725 0% 100% $0.0697 10,415 $725.27 Outdoor Area Lighting 16 0 $202 0% 100% N/A 0 $12.64 Res Time of Day 5 7,112 21.4% $201 0% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! RMNP - Administrative 2 862 0.0% $39 0% 100% N/A 431 $19.66 9,816 avg $801,240 100% annual revenues at this pace: $9,614,884 budget: $9,741,005 projected over/under: | ($126,121)I OD J C CD > (D 1 - 000 1 00 1 - 0:) /531 1 - 150. .12) 1 1 ~ db Â¤ Budgeted 2006 â€¢ 2006 evenues at eoed lue]Jnj L&P Revenue Progress + $9,800,000 $9,750,000 $9,700,000 - $9,650,000 - - 000'009'6$ - 000'099'6$ -- 000'009'6$ A 4/14/2006 . Water Sales by Month ($) 350,000 300,000 3 250,000 -7 7 I , 5 5 5 r 200,000 Â¤2004 -, / E v 1 / , # v ***, Â¤2005 ,*** 150,000 - Â¤2006 1 *'t' /**, 0 ****, 100,000 - &- 5- 4- 6- t-i r *,,, - t,,* **/, ,,,* 50,000 - ~ 4 * I Â¢ I ,,,* 4 * I * 1 0- '1 1 J / 4 1-2 r, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Water Sales Year-To-Date ($1,000) 2,500 $2,128,000 - 2,000 -5 - 02004 -5 5 M 2005 -17 3 3 1,500 92006 - Budget / / --7 / 1,000 - 9.28% 2006 YTDVS 2005 - -- j-- 7 $ 1 -5- 5 3 j 500 - 1 , , 4 1. , 1, 1 I o _m-l El 6 5 * 't /4 4 44 * t. t. \ , 1 /1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RW5 Â«.7. \ U \\\\\\11\\\\\\ \ 1Â«MXÂ»a\\\\"\\\\"\\"""Â»Â» L......#L. .... 2 2 2 2 2 22@22%232 2 Â£Â£Â£ 09 8 RRB:g 0222=021 - - - ag W , 0 Q.25 2 4 4 38=20 1 .... m M 9 1 2 5 Z -tr)%00.1 000â‚¬9 Or.,c,â€¢r, 2ggg ER 0000 880 8 0 M 3 0 .1 Â£ 000Â© dododdo 3Â§ 82822 re,Wer,WOO rn h Ch 0 -NO 8008 0 EN =0000 00000 00000 0 %BEBE 2.%2 Cm*â‚¬A tr, M rN rn - 1-0028 0 2 3% Â§0 "1 9. 01 * 00 %Â§ Rgog %35%80 0 Oct 0% h q e m %00.* â‚¬NW-CN en 00 - F . 81- 3Â§0 39 1 =<g Â·E -9 0 3 6 2, R 21 U a 2.6 9 0 . 81 2 1 8 2 .% 8,9 4 9 1 .E b - Â£ b 8 N N.= 2 3 5.2 3 4 1 1 *E)65 .0.400<OE- 8 9 NE g i i 1 1 9 5 3 168 205 uu Z -8 5, 2~0 m m M E- LOO 0 DATE MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE Ck-81 (LMS J Â£85-3 SnmOS 91[10 01 poleÂ®[IBROA!0001 11Â§10 147,596 144,32 2,137,800 60,0 0 200,000 150,700 2628 I 5 92Â£'OI Et 1/Â£'88/ 99Z'ftl osuodxg ooueug lurew puu UOI Jelod 88LTE 9L9'EOE 200'0 6100 0 E,E'g 88L'EE IEI'6E Z89'LI 60E'L6 t0000 Â£0000 09 L65'Â§ L59'5 ;no SJOJSUE.4 SUI latodo Z9 'OII 006 L 0 '101 Uolle 02 % C d = 4 Â« 00 5,9,42 ZIO'LEf +300 0 VE00*0 94Â£'EE 549'*Â£ !66'L9 L06'f09 EZE'SEI'E 95E0'0 Ltâ‚¬0*0 (93Â£69) ILE'Z9Z 540'951 somxpugdxg lelol 16L'lEt Sume (64*'8Â£I) (+9*.5/I) Â§86'ZE (le,!deo alojoq som:!puodxo 300,000 3 96,589 0.0101 2,734,389 1,0 $17,810,446 $17, 3,217,572 $2,682,987 $2, VARIANCE COMPARISON JOAO SOnUOAN Jo Kou@!3Uop/ssooxED le,ojqns inning net assets (assets - 1 ab WATER FUND El . TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPARTMENT TRENDS Type Summary Date March-06 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of % of Avg Avg Avg # of accts Gal Growth Revenues Tot Revs Cum Rev/Gal GaVCust Rev/Cust Urban Residential 2,580 12,433,124 -1.1% $70,827 37% 37% $0.006 4,823 $27.46 Urban Commercial 704 13,146,524 -0.6% $49,245 26% 63% $0.004 18,776 $70.23 Rural Residential 1,274 4,501,520 -0.2% $49,862 26% 89% $0.012 3,537 $39.16 Rural Commercial 97 1,823,685 -1.6% $10,848 6% 95% $0.007 19,062 $113.12 Bulk Water 967,255 2.3% $9,409 5% 100% $0.011 avg: $190,192 100% annual revenues at this pace: $2,282,299 budget $2,137,800 projected over/under: | $144,499 | U) (D J C (1) CD >O (1) 0 r NO 1 - 000 1 .1- - 02 - Oa doL 1 1~ ..........P......... 44 -1 --- 000 4 db m Budgeted 2006 Revenues at Goed luern Water Revenue Progress + ,/26 $2,300,000 $2,250,000 - $2,200,000 - $2,150,000 - - 000'OOLIES - 000'090'1$ - 000'000'1$