The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Utilities Committee 2006-08-17AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8 a.m. Thursday, August 17, 2006 Preparation date: 8/10/06/06 *Revision date 8/14/06 **Revision date 8/15/06 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT Light & Power Department 1. Wholesale Wind Energy Rate Change Request Rate Change Approval 2. Community Drive Underground Project Request to Accept Bid 3. Replace Light and Power Duty Truck 93320 Request to Accept Bid Water Department **1. No action items REPORTS Light and Power 1. Light & Power Financial Reports Water 1. Water Financial Reports 2. Water Rate Schedule Adoption Report Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ' 4*.4 \Â® hp LaserJet 3015 W ] HP LASERJET FAX invent Aug-16-2006 10:36AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 192 8/16/2006 10:31:20AM Send 5869561 0:39 1 OK 193 8/16/2006 10:32:04AM Send 5869532 0:54 1 OK 194 8/16/2006 10:33:03AM Send 5861691 0:00 0 No Answer 195 8/16/2006 10:34:10AM Send 6353677 0:49 1 OK 196 8/16/2006 10: 35: 04API Send 5771590 0:57 1 OK An TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum August 10, 2006 TO: The Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring & Mike MangelseA/' -/01,0/7 SUBJECT: Renewable Energy Rate Reduction History: Effective on July 1, 2006, Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reduced by 50% the wholesale rate that the Town of Estes Park and the other member cities pay for renewable energy. The charge went from $.024/kWh to $.012/kWh. Proposed:. Keeping in line with the other member cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont it is proposed that the Town of Estes Park follow suite and reduce the retail rate to its customers from $.025/ kWh to $.015/ kWh. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the retail Renewable Energy rate be reduced by the specified amount. MM 1-1 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum August 10, 2006 TO: The Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring & Mike Mangelsei~ SUBJECT: Community Drive Underground Electric-2006 Background: The Light and Power Fund, page 263, contains $190,000.00 for the undergrounding of power lines. Project plans and specifications were compiled and the job was advertised in the local papers. In addition invitations to bid were sent to local contractors. Four bids were received. Cost/Budget: Cost: 1) Atkins Electric $42,468.00 2) Selcon Utility Contractor $43,251.50 3) Kearney and Sons $44,289.00 4) A-1 Excavating, Inc $45,067.50 Budget: $70,000.00 Account # 502-7001-580-3558 Action: Staff recommends that we contract with "Atkins Electric" for the amount specified. MM 2-1 3< 1 m 0 0 %6*. 0 X. 1 1 9 25 2 *i 03AV 0Â¥03NVIN x Z P.- ---Ill-- ' c- ANYMINd .Â£ ,0~ (5~- / ill ABVMIHZ], 18Â£ / 111 10 w,n 11 i CILL] 11 Â¥ - 0 11 U) 02 y x 1 1 11 4' 0 6 53 11< ill 1 1 8 1 Z /1/ \ 1 ----h 4 1 -- \ iii* / %-1 L i- -a --- 3 1 1 9\11 1 1 1[--- (/4 01- ---6 >q ..AL \ L_L h i 824/ 4% /CD . jO\ O 0-30,% P z 11 j C 0 11 08 \\\\ Z 1 1 7/ i i - ---- --- 2 41 0 ----44-2-1 0// 0 > d c \1 mg r / CE / 0 0 1 2 Nkl 1 .K 1 -- 1 m 0 0/ \ - - 20 11 X- 1 1 . W 0 / Z U) 8 11 X 0 0 / 1 <1 m / -J -1 1 it 1 11 1 \\ 16 \1\\ \ \\ 1 %\ 0 X all\\ \ \ \ r ZX \' 0 \\ 02 + ,-4 \ \ \ X- mm \ \ 22=02~ m \\ 00 - + \ \ Z Ow 4 00&3-1 *2 \ \ 0-U) -0 N.~C\=0 \ ..00 X ar. I I \ \ . I X \ \ + ZJ \ Â·'Owdr â€¢1 \ .PC X \\\ < 3 ~ 1~ \X i.. \0 \\\4---IX-/-/ I 02 88 X mfoft . IX,9 M2 irad 38 % 1 ZE - \ i %1 O \ \ 8:ill /5 ... ,%0 - O r g \ \\ 22 Â»77~1-TD ... -...1 r- 1\ . 1 LOW X 'i-4 N - > 27-CD-CED----__ o -z"A \.. - @97.-- -0-90 84Â· 0 COURTS BASKETBAL. COURT LAKE ESTES COURTS -~- SONn08981Â¥3 BALL FIELDS S013 Ij 11Â¥8 DOG PARK MUVd 000 SCALE 1" = LAKE ESTES ANCHO TOWN Of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum August 11,2006 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring / Dave Mahany SUBJECT: Budgeted Duty Truck Replacement (93320C) REVISED Background: The 2006 Light & Power Department budget includes $42,000.00 (Account# 502-7001-580.34-42) for the replacement of Vehicle 933120C, 2000 F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body, 6 years old with 64,800 miles (Replacement Type 5,50,000 - 60,000 miles or 5-6 years). Cost/Budget: Cost: â€¢ Spradley Barr - Ft. Collins, Co. 2007 Ford F3504x4 Truck w/Utility Body...........................................$39,079.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body., $ 8,000.00 ' Bid Price: $ 31,079.00 ** After Town Board approval of the above vehicle and ordering it, Spradley Barr has informed me they are withdrawing their bid and will not be able to provide this vehicle or honor the quoted price due to a error by the salesman in figuring the vehicle cost. â€¢ Transwest GMC - Henderson Co. 2007 GMC 3500 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ........................................$40,838.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body. .. ........$ 9,001.00 Bid Price: $ 31,837.00 â€¢ Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, Co. 2007 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body..........................................$40,847.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ........................................$ 9,000.00 Bid Price: $ 31,847.00 â€¢ Weld County Garage - Greeley, Co. 2007 GMC 3500 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ........................................$41,735.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ........................................$ 6,000.00 Bid Price: $ 35,735.00 Budget: $42,000.00 (502-7001-580.34-42) Cost: $31,837.00 Action: Staff recommends: Trading-in vehicle 93320C, accepting the second lowest bid and purchasing a new 2007 GMC 3500 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body from Transwest GMC, Henderson Co. for a cost of $31,837.00. Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Utility Committee Town Administrator Repola From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: August 16, 2006 Subject: Utility committee report Background Pursuant to the request made from the Committee in the last meeting (June 15, 2006), I am attaching this memo to summarize the enclosed utility reports. Body Light & Power July 2005 and 2006 are nearly mirror images of one another, with the net incomes coming in at $113,215 and $111,666, respectively. July distribution costs exceeded 2005 due to purchases of meters. Other variances are attributable to salary distributions. For the year, we expect expenses to be at 58% of budget. However, we are only at 48%. This is due largely to capital projects and debt service costs not having caught up to budget. However, regular 0&M costs are also under budget (49%), so we are encouraged. There's still a lot of green on the green/red report, although the revenue progress vs. budget has tapered off over the past few months. Hopefully we'll get a push into the end of the year as we only need to make up about $35,000 to meet budgeted revenues. It looks good so far. Water The water department is running significantly ahead of 2005, based largely on revenues (see bar chart). The green/red directional chart is almost entirely green, which means everything is moving in a positive direction. As discussed in the Town Board meeting on Tuesday July 8, 2006, we had some accounting challenges involving tap fees. Appropriate journal entries have been made, but it makes July-to-July analysis difficult. Referring to year-to-year analysis demonstrates that we are indeed ahead of 2005. Total expenditures are only at 43% ofbudget. This is because capital expenditures are only at 12% of budget. Fuither, debt service payments are not made in uniform fashion. The 0&M expenses are all within expectations of 58%, with the exception of Source of Supply, which is at 80%. As water is not purchased monthly as is power, we are not concerned at this point. In further reference to the accounting adjustments, please note the large negative numbers below the excess/deficiency lines on the July columns of the cash flow statements. These are accounting adjustments to line items not present in our general analysis (balance sheet items), and are not material to our analysis. Reference to the change in cash positions YTD demonstrates that we are in more favorable positions now (July 2006) than we were a year ago. We do not see any material concerns reflected in the July 2006 financials, and are pleased with the condition ofthe Enterprise Funds at this point in time. Action steps requested - None. â€¢ Page 2 2 A A 2 EGI 00 CEA Â¤R# 0 f Kil - 00 %@ Â§*Z 00 000 RE %Â§Â§3 00 doodod mem @gEE re;' 6 6 2*2e A- m M i *EE =g PE 333 / Â¢4 ... en \10 -- M W â‚¬9 2 5 29 0 -- 0 0 061â‚¬9 51% re~%- 0 fE 55 U<O *Rts 0 3020 8& Distribution and Maintenance 110,157 163,130 (;:,94 27;1~ 2,~ 391,669 217 2 211 Ntz 54% inistration and General 78,76 84,594 (5,831) 6 583, 583,727 45% %81 051'55 00Â£'Â§0Â£ TOO'0 I 00'0 8tÂ£'t 091'59 86+'69 00[Al @S JqoG DATE MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE BUDGET vs. YTD (132) 2021 757,132 77 4 13,41 5,623,879 5,947,099 0.077 0.080 9,741,005 5,947,099 Total Revenues 821,520 82 918 6,213,222 10,138,868 6,2~3,22~ mer Billing and Accounts 40,196 46,605 (6,409) 350,399 346,2 5 0.005 ,571 346,268 51% %Z 05â‚¬Lit L09'686 900'0 500 0 (.ES'8*) 09*'Lit 919'89Â£ LÂ£9'9Z 649' E 981'0Â£ 181!deo %5 8Â£6'iII g Â£Â£I'6Â£6 Â£000 Â£000 0Â£Â£'OZ 8Â£6'Eig 890*ES 6Ld'Z 6*Â£'69 836'IL lnO S.I@Jsuell Buile.lod~ %8* 666'6I0'5 gif'OLf'01 L90'0 fL0'0 Elt'80* 666'610'5 ZIf'8Zt'Â§ (966'Z) IOE'Ill 50Â£'SOL solmipuodxa 18101 2006 2006 2005 2006 2006 of (Â£68'96*) V/N (Â£68'96*) (Â£68'96t) 0 (188'Â£29) (ERS'Â£59) 0 SojinOS 19410 01 PolejolleR@A!20@1 4%80 0EE'969 (L+9'IEE) 418'OSE 0Â£Â£'969 905'St,V (I Et/515) (9[Czlt) SICEli 41uoul 101 uo!)!sod qseo u! OSuu4:) Beginning net assets (assets - liabilities) $10,811,188 $10,811,188 Beginning unrestricted (usable) fund balance 3,856,633 $2,748,086 $2,748,086 $2,748,086 EZZ'Â£61' 1 (L+9'l EE) L IL'Lt,L EZZ'Â£61'1 905'5*f (6*9' 1 ) 999'Ill 5[Z'Eli (ielideo moJoq samupuodxa 9/*'t*'Â£$ 6Â£99 lt'a 9!Vm'Â£$ Lit'fft'Â£$ O3118Ieq pung (@Iqusn) polouls@.un SUIPUEI 64,388 5 039 266,123 397,863 JULY VAR VAR Per kWh Per kWh Total O&M Expenses 606,09 638,303 (32,212) 4,4 6 4,033,461 432,559 ration an~~~5'Cltxpense 376,817 343,684 POWER FUND COMPARISON DAO SanUOAOJ jO KOU@!01;Op/SSOOXH) imoiqns Revenues enditures TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER TRENDS Type Summary Date July-06 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of Avg Avg Avg # ofaccts KWH Growth Revenues Total Rev % Cum Rev/KWH KWH/Cust Rev/Cust Residential 7,350 3,815,436 0.1% $340,191 42% 42% $0.0895 519 $46.25 Gen Serv Small 1,574 2,035,730 0.3% $179,849 22% 64% $0.0885 1,293 $114.21 Gen Serv Large 92 2,804,174 0.9% $171,083 21% 85% $0.0613 30,636 $1,869.80 Residential Demand 408 731,110 -1.7% $63,832 8% 93% $0.0909 1,802 $157.23 Res Energy / Time of Day 230 392,729 -1.1% $23,740 3% 96% $0.0624 1,703 $102.95 Municipal 61 241,770 -0.1% $18,688 2% 99% $0.0773 3,988 $308.35 RMNP - Small Admin 19 61,962 -1.1% $2,813 0% 99% $0.0455 3,261 $148.04 RMNP - Large Admin 6 63,976 0.5% $2,620 0% 99% $0.0414 10,663 $436.67 Wind Power 98 0 #DIV/0! $2,105 0% 100% N/A 0 $21.51 Res Basic Energy 14 17,859 1.5% $1,503 0% 100% $0.0850 1,355 $113.51 GSS - Comml - Energy TOD 13 17,543 -1.1% $1,163 0% 100% $0.0669 1,322 $87.70 GSL - Comml - Time of Day 1 10,865 1.8% $755 0% 100% $0.0705 10,865 $755.48 Outdoor Area Lighting 16 0 #DIV/0! $212 0% 100% N/A 0 $13.25 Res Time of Day 5 7,318 -0.7% $205 0% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! RMNP - Administrative 2 612 -3.4% $31 0% 100% N/A 306 $15.57 9,888 avg $808,791 100% annual revenues at this pace: $9,705,489 budget: $9,741,005 projected over/under: | ($35,516)| 1 - 000 1 -7.1 1 db 1 --4,--- 00 1 - 4 1 lea - - CA L&P Revenue Progress D Budgeted 2006 SenueAehl le senue/\3~1 9001 â€¢ eoed juerno + y 79, MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND 25500 - 23500 21500 -[}- 2004 -Il,-2005 0 19500 - 2006 17500 --ilr 15500 13500 11500 - 1 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTHLY ENERGY PURCHASES 12,000 -A - 3% 3- 1 7 E im :7 1 A *: 54 4 iI hp 10,000 -0 -31 -74 0 6 7-- -7 /> 4 â‚¬ A /1 /X fa 02 03 4% A 0% 4: 2 % fi ** ~ m2OO4 8,000 -0% -Â« - -A --14 -44 -44 -4% &1 52% 0% jit jt 3% 3 f 0% 0 32% 5% #9 0 2005 A ** 64 94 48 #W #4 $~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~f Â¤2006 04 4% 9% UN #\ 44 4% 4% 46 2% 24 44 44 -04 'Â«-* 2 01 34: 6,000 -A -%2 -2 -28 -04 -04 *9 -A rt-24-/31-4.. - 04"* *4 34 %54048%%11#1 ~' 0: VE *li k #454 0% MR A %* 93 3 a k A 04 8 8% 41 *14 t: 04 4% 19 52* 4% 0% 23 8 4% E 4 44 /55 n 3% 2% mi 2,000 - 3,2,4,1,3,2,2,0,5 1 %3 1 9_22 , -4 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 6 Monthly MWH SYSTEM KW 1**4*. ****NO*. 97/02Â«33'.5 I tatÂ«Â«4Â«Itt NON*NÂ·N YTD ENERGY PURCHASES 120,000 100,000 80,000-- 0.60% YTD 2006 VS f 2005 SEE i A / - " D= 53 A 8 2004 *m mu N 2005 60,000 #* ing 40,000 Â£ * 4 4 -9 F 4% 86 01 Â«* 01% U 4 1 1, 20,000 a. 43 *m 7:Â· 7 Â·=: 4=Â·: E 0. 0 4-* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD POWER COST vs. BUDGET ($1,000) BBUDGET Â¤ACTUAL 5,000 4,500 9 4,000 3,500 W** 3,000 R%*% .a.... 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 2% r . 500 -- *i&m X 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 7 - t<,u.61**MMif4ICÂ«Crte/1 irijil, YTD MWH Purchased kak -<' <ffÂ«SKKVKWJUCCUFF Lit<(mÂ«24<44(*444 ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH ($1,000) 1,200 1,100 1,000 -- 900 -, - 0 2004 800 -51 -t -1 -1 t> Ct % 4 112005 t a -1 -74 b 7 3% 9 . 11 0 ,4 O 2006 <% Ty )2 Ta (tr 4% f 2% th &4 4, 5% 19 tk 34 ft tt AA I. â€¢# 4 + 600 -<2 -f:.4 -NE -;Â·9 -3.4 -9'79 -Â·4i 4 . '1* 145 26 Ill kiâ‚¬ :k 8* %9 1,1.30 Rd :8.45 11% ef * 2% 5Â¢ 500 -F -'9 -1.2 19 -ad A 4 3% h< 81 -95 -6% 23 %@ af. #A .e 4 48 3% D v 312 :'4 4 :te 400 + -4 -11 -8 -11 --iti -4 2 4 9~ R 9 .U ' 4 21* F. 1,6 300 - ~~ i JE , 3=~ , fk , 33, , 42 , 3%1 , 41 , ji# , >E , ifk , tit , Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR TO DATE ELECTRIC SALES ($1,000) 10,000 10,138,000 9,000 j 5.75% 2006 YTD VS -, I 8,000 2005 7,000 - CZE] 2004 - J -* - - -â€¢t T .4 1 . r 6,000 - ~2005 - I . e 3 r 5,000 - 02006 ---1 -/.11 ./, - .Â·~ 11 -/ 4Â¢ - 1 - - 4,000 - -Budget -...................1...... 2 - 4 1, -A~ -Â·- 4 - g 4-Â· -- , 4 15 4 Â£ .4 d - r. j . 116 3.4%(, ..4 il 3,000 4 . , 4/6 â€¢Cl .< d 2( h - 11 3 , U 2 1 j 11; M /*I' W 2,000 , â€¢: -4 11 -.b - - 1; -Â·- .4 ~ __ ~ 0 ._........_ 4 <Â· --* I - -- 4, 42 2 li 64 ..': :/, 61 41 51 1 2 11 /- P ... b ..4,' / ' r., 7 4 * 4 11. 1,000 -riri-<t -51 -*-<i~ -~Â·Â·Â· 0 -c< 1~ -:* -.- Il tu /7 : MUI il .4 8 :s. /7 59 3, c , , -12 ,: , 41 1%'F 1.51 1 7-1 1 :if 1 1 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 8 YEAR TO DATE SALES MONTHLY SALES I. 1 ./1 1 4//11'I-/ I ./ '/1 I 'l 4.1 N. 1 1, 0 U.2 2 Â£gi55 gilegise * .e .2 00 tr, 16 tt, 4- 1,1 2 = 4 00 00 fri W M O egs=-= ERS 00 i %%%%0 -- -r-brel - jm 3% Â§Â§Â§*m 8,3850 g m.00*f OC~% MNA 2 03;$:32 N N M 3Â§ Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§ @RE@Â§Â§Â§ A ~ ~ 6- 09 2 00006 0000000 0 31 Â§08Â§Â§ Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§ 00000 coodood oor-,Oln 0 >. N "8*4% 288.84 -N-h 0 -=g= >â€¢ el M o A 61 020260 0 Â°;2&RgÂ° R w A.de 22R? â‚¬9-r-1 - 00 0 0 0 0 D M Z D % 151912 E* Orn - WV 0 010-fl - 0 U A Cl U .- M t: 2 0 1 3/ g â‚¬ 1 i li 11 , . 9 /2 0 -2.2 0 ME 5 U Â·- .O U e W I . 2222 Z 9 16- R - m m 04 1- 110 0 8 MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE %11 88L'EE 9LS'EO[ 000-0 EKE'S 88L'E[ 1Â£1'6Â£ 6Â£9'05 ZIO'LEt 000*0 000 0 56I'Ft 6Â£9'05 4Â£8'26 (ESI'ID Z8I'II 181!deo I 60'Â§Â£ 60E'L6 0000 691'OI I60'5E 09rf, (EL6'1) 565'll Â£19'6 ltÂ·10 SIR#suan SuneJado 616'EEE'I EZZ'8[ t'Â£ 900-0 (/26'9Â£1) 6 I6'fEE'I L66'961' I (+91'89) 666'61Z 9Â£8'IGI sam 1!puodxa Imol 959'21* (t,98'Eot) 86E'I 9 999'ZI* 892'19Â£ (904'Â£*t,) (86Â£'0*f) 800'EOI JOAO Sollu@AN.10'KS'423;J~[Cls 291'Â£9 V/N (E91'Â£9) E91'L9 0 991'Eft (991'Et't) 0 soomos 104,0 01 poiwoolIER@Al@00,1 4SE o 818'6Lt' (.Â£8'rot) 099'8 I I 818'6Lf SSE' 19Â£ (EL/988) (,99'ESL) 800'Â£01 41Uoul JOJ uo! )!sod qseo u! 00umi:) $:7 Â· Â· tltion*agnadn~An~cmolds 571''?i: 3%,20~~ ~57~'26;; {'3~}} i~~ ~ â‚¬:0'09Z (Â£9Â£'~ EGO'091 062'*SE OLd'iE 90*91'Â£$ Â£Â§1'6LZ'ES 908'191'Â£$ 908'391'Â£$ @ouuieq pung (@iqEsn) pojoulsanm Suipust I0t''fit'I 9ZE'01Â£'E (~Z9'56I) IOD'fIE'I ZLL'810' 1 (010'99) tEE'L6I ZIE'EN osuocixa Joueuaturew pue uoutiodo Imo VAR VAR Per Water sales 248,144 01,292 53, 1,168,590 1,3 175,098 9 5) (122,9M) 5,759 937) 008,937 2 (37,671) . 1 'El'St, 669'9 254,843 , 188,320 77,347 110,692 (33,345 43,866 255,774 316,775 (61,0 unrestricted (usable) fund balance 3,946,370 $2,682,987 39~) (3735,242) 1,5 n~ion|a nd Maintenance net assets (assets - liabilities) FUND TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPARTMENT TRENDS Type Summary Date July-06 12 - month rnoving average Total % Total % of % of Avg Avg Avg # of accts Gal Growth Revenues Tot Revs Cum Rev/Gal GaUCust Rev/Cust Urban Residential 2,607 13,474,005 3.6% $75,018 37% 37% $0.006 5,163 $28.75 Urban Commercial 718 13,517,830 1.4% $50,943 25% 62% $0.004 18,907 $71.17 Rural Residential 1,284 4,838,401 3.1% $52,439 26% 88% $0.012 3,768 $40.83 Rural Commercial 100 2,076,751 7.8% $12,274 6% 94% $0.007 20,874 $123.17 Bulk Water 1,065,428 0.7% $11,686 6% 100% $0.013 avg: $202,361 100% annual revenues at this pace: $2,428,331 budget $2,137,800 projected over/under: | $290,531 | - 000 db 1 - - 004 m Budgeted 2006 eoed jlleJJI10 Water Revenue Progress Revenues - - - - - I 2006 Revenues at + - 000'00Â£'1$ $2,250,000 - $2,200,000 - $2,150,000 - - 000'00 L '1$ - 000'090'3$ - 000'000'ZE 8/14/2006 Water Sales by Month ($) 350,000 300,000 - 250,000 7 1,4 *,* **t - -, , -4 - 200,000 --*-, , O- r- v Â¤2004 7 , , / v Â¤ 2005 150,000 ---F Â¤2006 t. , I , 9 5 5 5 / 100,000- - - 151 - t * * 4 -4,4, r * I I ' r 4 I * I 50,000 - t 0 * I O ,@M' -% 5/'' I * -4. 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 M2004 -~ r '. 02005 1,500 O2006 //' -Budget 9, I -7 1,000-- 14.98% 2006 YTD VS 2005 E-i- - , -il- 2 '' -5 / , 500 - 5 2 - 5 5 6 , 0- 1 k. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RW5 #\\\\\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X ~1...1....1....1.'###. ..11. TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum August 15, 2006 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Steve McFarland and Bob Goehring /lmvbs SUBJECT: Water Rate Schedule Adoption Background: On December 9 2003, the Board of Trustees approved the extension of a 2.9% water rate increase for 2007 and 2008. The increase will take effect February 1, 2007. The rate structure is part ofthe Water Department 2003-2008 Financial Plan. Resulting revenue increases will assist in funding capital improvements for the water treatment and distribution systems. Many ofthese improvements are necessary due to the ever-changing and rigorous water quality parameters mandated by the EPA. The increased rates will also assist in the funding of the Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant expansion, which is necessary due to increased water demand and stringent water quality requirements. The accepted rates are shown in Table 1-1. The rates are also designed to equitably recover the cost of serving each customer class. The proposed rate structure includes a service charge and a uniform volume charge. The 2,500 gallon volume allowance in the service charge is eliminated after the previously approved rate schedule time frame is complete. Eliminating the 2,500 gallon volume allowance in the service charge allows seasonal customers and customers using less than 2,500 gallons to be charged only for the actual water consumed. This type of rate structure encourages water conservation and is common among similarly sized utilities along the Front Range. Cost/Budget: Budget: Barring unforeseen changes, water revenue will increase (due to the proposed rate schedule adoption) by the following amounts: â€¢ 2007: $66,000 â€¢ 2008: $66,800 Action: Staff recommends no action at this time. 4/ .. 1 .1-4 , 1. _ fl RR 99 %5%= 22 %089958 - tri tr) un lr) I N tritri _ 4. H A co K to oi m l m 0,1 N N ./ r.) CO .. 3 g g R R & 2 2 8 Et M @2 82 89 2 C (4 0 e q M CO ' 9 ~0'Â·ritÂ·Â·Â·ocgceiÂ·1: - la r r-- r N N LO G 2 il CNINI ~* ~~ 22 LOUJUDOODO M (1 h u-) 10 4 m t-F 1 - 44 44 f< A .0 LO ,131 ~ '2 12 Ila 1 C 'IN 2 2 - r- 9 1 U, tr) N N h n 00 m m WN 00 00 00 00 N 0 0 0 0 000 c M Â¢9 (ri 0 4. q re) M 098%9*0 1. g O M 1 00000UDO A MYÂ¢9<No U 4 6 w 60Â·WN#c>â€¢-- M (9 M a e W CO - 1-Ti 0 01 00â€¢0..Oâ€¢00 O M to 00'r!(99-m 1% - I. , 4 - r r N N V Co co c. 0, O$ m O .m o e 6 3 12 g ' 2 2 N =. 03 03 02 m of oR A ec Â·NÂ·N N M M CD A 0 10 -~ 00[00,--,003 2@ & & & 0 3 0# 2 8 (0 F~i - M . O 0 !28 SEEEE 1 ....00Â©,41 N I~- 2~ 0 .go C C< - N E * -g M 1 3%2%93 --0 12 g = = = = g = 2 0, ..0010â„¢,~CO LOLOLON.NO ~21 ki '< 06 - 4 N co f lif f N N R .cr) I r- & 21 0 EE N el fs {3 fo {S : M ketz:*LAW C!â„¢00â€¢OONA 2 2 1 1 E [3 2 19 .-NEOCONY -r 11 E r-- m rn to N Ct g -1 ,-0 2 in<WWo>MM M CO M er) 0 - 3 1 5 M C 2 8500 4* g /4 1 8 1 5 110 - 22 02 10 0 to 0 C a) â€¢t (C) C) e r cD I v- re f- CO CO~IOCOO O .O (DAOLOG>d â‚¬ 59 C 0 = 00 0 16 & ~ 1 mi E % r. J =efff W 05 LL < - F RE E - % E gl iro 2&0 2 0 ME' El i j T Rural lEinE uect,n 2004 2006 %1%7 25~) gallons M nimum Charge Minimum Charge Minimum Charge First 2,500 gallons Minimum Charge Minimum Charge Â·ea,e 40 00!10@ut,00 .I@leAA e Jo ne!l u! S.lel.LIO}sno Jele/A Ming 60!19!xe m pessesse eq liells suoile{3 000' i Jad Â£9Â·21 Jo eWetlo GUIrli A V Table 1-1 60'91 91'9Z 178 had $ - 39BVH0 11'1 1 klad $ - 39WVHO INOWINIW UO!108UUOO Jtâ‚¬41 Jo eulll 04]1e loDge ul %,e40 uo!10el.IUOO JeleM 841 uo paseq @bjel.pins eluniot, e passesse eq leqs SJeWO]Sno Jele/â€¢ ling ein VOLUME CHARGE - $ PER 1,000 GALLONS eleJ MOU peduind elll pe~elp eq liells Jewo}Sno MOB pedulned e osie s! lell) JOLUOJSnO JaleM MIng Minimum Charge Over 2,500 gallons Commercial