Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Utilities Committee 2007-01-181 , AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, January 18, 2007 Preparation date: January 12, 2007 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT Water Department 1. Water Financial Plan Adoption a. Water Utility Master Plan presentation by Sara Clark, PE, HDR b. Water Utility Financial Plan presentation by Cil Pierce, Senior Project Manager, HDR Light and Power Department 1. Light and Power Financial Plan Adoption a. Mary's Lake Substation, Platte River and distribution system presentation by Mike Dahl, Division Manager of Electric Operations with Platte River Power Authority, and Bob Goehring b. Financial Plan presentation by Cil Pierce, Senior Project Manager, HDR REPORTS: Water 1. Water Financial Reports Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . 7 . / I ® hp LaserJet 3015 ILE) HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-15-2007 2:14PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 882 1/15/2007 2:10:01PM Send 5869561 0:35 1 OK 883 1/15/2007 2:10:42PM Send 5869532 0:49 1 OK 884 1/15/2007 2:11:37PM Send 5861691 0:55 1 OK 885 1/15/2007 2:12:37PM Send 6353677 (:51 1 OK 886 1/15/2007 2:13:33PM Send 5771590 0:57 1 OK 6 0 TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Water Department Financial Plan Background In June of 2006 we hired HDR Engineering to do a Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation and a Financial Plan for the Water Department. The Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation was to determine our ability to meet upcoming State and EPA Regulations and future water productions demands. HDR would work with staff to study both facilities, Glacier Creek and Mary's Lake. Following the study, HDR would propose recommendations for system improvements with a timetable and cost estimates. This study is included in this packet. HDR was to prepare Financial Plan to include their recommended system improvements and our existing capital improvement plan. The Financial plan would highlight any budgetary shortfalls and recommend supplementary funding options, i.e. rate increases or revenue bonds. While maintaining a 90-day O&M and 2% fixed assets fund balance. The Fund Summary and Capital Improvement Plan are included in this packet. Budget NA Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the HDR 2007 Financial Plan, not necessarily at this meeting. 0/0 I , 74 17=, 1 . 7, r I ) I K -4 e .,f * f f a; a . 0 0 ... . - 4 -J - 0 ..... . 0 47= t 1. . ... .. : 00 t~••44• Utility Goals Frame Water Plant Evaluation • Reliable and sufficient capacity • Adaptable to regulatory changes • Minimize risk to potable water supply • Minimize operational cost • Adaptable to existing water system 1 v 1 Water Treatment Plant Capacity Goals • Current reliable capacity - 4.5 mgd - 1.5 mgd at Mary's Lake WTP - 3 mgd at Glacier Creek WTP (except in winter) • Future capacity - 6 mgd • Ultimate capacity - 9 mgd ..... 1 · -' -•I¥, '21 Glacier Creek WTP Issues -:... e le., ty<.A*Q'.,1-,1 • Future water quality/regulations , 1----'70 • Fire and flood risk • Remote location - security and accessibility • Treatment capacity and reliability • Facility age and building code concerns • Waste handling and disposal Long-term viability of plant is a concern - Glacier Creek WTP Concerns ---i-*.al ./.2/1./ .4,€*411-..4./ 36$/i- 1~ .·.J.4/ CM,<BEhl , Ar#lit#F-·cat£ ¥irt.~:faBRIP'llill'll'll,6/'llf, A '188/49 =- .5~~ ¥59/BA ¥,5 92> .4..Ii.Ip/11 i Milidri<·4:4.1 ,4.:. .1=0 -?842' 6.¢ ~4=.R.2..e ni £ <·Af~...421,-8 -t¢ ,*dijo.,13 .ar ME= -4 :/ .· ~FF·oj/:.Ap1/ . 1 : dqi#-27101 ..... Plant intake ft-eezes over Residuals are held in small in winter pond immediately adjacent to Glacier Creek Mary's Lake WTP Issues ...m~ t • Treatment capability and reliability W=~/.lil*I ¥42*.~ • Treatment capacity :3;4€+5-7./Stergli'INFIR",IM/Re&W; • Waste disposal Zl*·0-29*101#2*9:%72582'/Latils,Vt • BOR control of raw water supply • Geographic site is constrained .arfig*M 9 -~m... -/.... la-E#.Ii -5.-4·. .. f,Afc¢;42*j¢Ebtra~19:im-~11-m- - 0/6-*UL 4.·'~.32% u' 3 Major Water Quality Issues • Mary's Lake - algae counts can be high • Glacier Creek - potential Cryptosporidium problem • Glacier Creek - runoff turbidity peaks • Glacier Creek - low temperature and alkalinity makes water difficult to treat Raw Water Turbidity 3.50 *GCWTP 3.00 * - IMLWTP 2.50 0 2.00 I . i 1.50 .. . .. 100 1 .. . m . ..... 0.50 . 0.00 Nov-04 Feb-05 May-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jul-06 Oct-06 Date - Water Quality Comparison Water Quality Issue Facility with this Issue Glacier Creek Water Mary's Lake Water Cold Water Temperature x High pH x Low Alkalinity x High total organic carbon x Turbidity Spikes x High DBP formation potential X High algae count x Giardia risk x x Cryptosporidium risk x Future Regulatory Compliance Issues • Tighter control of disinfection byproducts Levels depend on distribution system water age ~ - Impacted by organic content of water • Cryptosporidium removal or inactivation - Based on the concentration in the raw water - Potential for extra treatment requirement at Glacier Creek 1 1 ./1 1 1 .. 1 1 1 1+ I 1 2006 2007 2008 ~ 2009 2010 ~ 2011 2012 2013 2014 LT2ESWTR & Begin '-6- Crypto ,~.. Additional ., treatment ...1 9.1.1694 . treatment Stage 2 D8PR Crypto finalized sampling requirement 7:-798'.it: 9 for (*ypto defined ., on-line 5 Current Water Rights • Available at both plant sites - potentially transferable • Mary's Lake complication - the BOR can shut down the tunnel and drain lake at will • Glacier Creek complication - low creek flows and freezing condition in winter 3% Treatment Plant Options Considered • Expand Mary's Lake WTP • Build new water treatment plant • Fix both existing water treatment plants . Factors Considered for Selecting Preferred Alternative • Capacity requirements - • Treatment technology ~ • Pumping and piping of raw water • Residuals handling • Water rights transfer • Permitting requirements • Likelihood of environmental assessment - • COE/BOR involvement level Preferred Alternative • Expand Mary's Lake WTP using submerged membranes • Phase 1 - Expand to 4 mgd capacity - • Phase 2 - Expand to 6 mgd capacity - Build raw water pipeline - Build finished water pipeline - Mothball Glacier Creek WTP • Leaves expansion options open for 9 mgd capacity 7 Potential Changes to Water Rights • Transfer Glacier Creek rights to Mary's Lake • Transfer Glacier Creek diversion downstream to Big Thompson River i • BOR is open to change ...../........./..... 1 Membranes are a Proven Technology • Positive barrier to Cryptosporidium and other bacteria • Maximize space available • Approved by the State • Demonstrated 4-log removal credit for Cryptosporidium 8 Low Pressure Membranes Meet Treatment Challenges 4~~um Giardia / Er-*aMer#L/* L.. WU~;fil?it 1,6 , 4 1, b. f/l 27'. 6---, 11. ' : 4/,4, I Um .1, . 1 *Ar#:ELER I ,-4 4.- i.»ST•, *0"4, Virus ' i.6,,/4 , '96.¥i .1 Am. What Is a Low-Pressure Membrane? Membranes can remove anything that is larger than the pores. Tudy, *, 1.- j-+44£LL#w,L , ~ ~.2 ..1%/. 'I-' 4*"I liu. - L r...,F . .r :te .-u'' Tripi L. . .F~~.. . .·' 71 .2 , ...1 ¢4'+T'. 4 ·if.1. I. 9 .. a . a . 0 - 0 ' .Prgin#&/416'4(,1, 4 i~p,2 . , -- ..2 Holds t 424'ni.:~ 622}hit/4 40 3 I71 I. . SS ,$ 11 1 100 Wn 10 0.001 0.0001 Reverse osmosis 0 0 hair visible.,. to ..: .... Nanofiltration naked eye Ultrafiltration Microfiltration Sand Filter Submerged Membranes • Well-suited for surface water treatment • Can be retrofitted to existing filters 3.iqu b- • Will remove Cryptosporidium I."0&44 uzz -50;~%€b©L'. 1 1- ----- - An.TUL 95*~ A dill: / liftli" 1 Illilll|'ll• 1 1 10 ~ Schedule Water rights work Design Construct Design Construct Phase 2 Phase 1 Phasel Phase 2 Itl I ITI 3·1 , 1 11 I 2®6 ~ /2007 7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 LT2ESWTR Begin Additional Crypto treatment ··: 1- treatment & Stage 2 Crypto DBPR sampling requirement ··: i for Crypto defined ; on=line finalized Cost Summary Phases 1 and 2 • Phase 1 - Mary's Lake WTP expansion to 4 mgd - $5.2 million • Phase 2 - Mary's Lake WTP expansion to 6 mgd - $5.6 million - Distribution system improvements - $1.7 million Ultimate Expansion to 9 mgd • Decision can be delayed - • Flexibility for different approaches - - Build new 3 mgd WTP - Upgrade Glacier Creek WTP : - Expand Mary's Lake WTP to 9 mgd • Near-term design must allow for ultimate expansion Next Steps • Secure water rights transfer agreements ~ • Initiate plant pre-design • Conduct treatment investigation • Evaluate distribution system hydraulics 12 'r I - Typical Submerged Membrane Process Coagulant Permeate Flash Mixe Pump Feed Water 1 100 ,-9 i.:_ 3-'.1.$~4. f« El, el'~//11"-- 93 =489 + Chambm·---8 1 345/A"411//// 1 , 4~*lit•il tz> Hid~ solids comcmtration in tank A Air 13 d ... I f¢ 1,1 ~. .., 1, 0, 9 ' r904· 41 - Ilt 'i ,:14 ' - 1 . -. '~'~ ·l'QA:4, ··1,? C, 4 -:f, '2 ,~11.~fil'i j, CAJ, ..)~,~i~'i·~,6m2L- 5.~ 2 )d.. - g 1 -' , 11} l-j 4 f 99 -- . ... I .4 1 ~ f>j:z)*~ .-9 .1 , 1 C C; 1.- i i ~~·*2 vj - a 'pr·~z,-1-·-*·»ic i; 2 *.·,r:25-t:' '* 1. 2 t .1 . gr .. 1 - , 1 ./ - - . A-- Guodo ) /2 , N - --t l '6 •,4..;· . 1 . I. -- 4 I. 1 3 - ,·:3.4.A 1 , Fe j' .6 324 ' I 7 +11 - - , f .4 g ~~iI; = -=cojl .., , 1 2 4 44 -2--r -- ,/, th-34-3-7'..4 llc /, 1 h.'..... V ; r /,1 , -j 1 ., --.-,r-- 1' i| 1 4 t *-.. <4 1 :Ld ' . /2/ ' '' / 111 , t 63'r' A . 4 J E f F 262 - u: I# I-*2~2442.12\ .- ~ --- \. -,»~~-5-2.,20a.3.,i. ,~0; -- • 1 ~Lf' 0,4 1 .09=-=72.~ f-4.-...::...A< t-9 7.--- -ZE@32£-61-1--'" --'.... f &0%2- ..1 -79 5 W 1. . .. . f , 4 . . .. 'm . 1,1 '2 ~'-4 '~b'~/1)~5~.1.kEL:'·.'-; Shtl::21.: 11.- 3. /1· . 1 . 3 234? 1 L»2*3>XE # 1,\1 1,; ...: . 10>D,1-7~'I) id - 4 11\ 1 5 - + ·- 'b,3 \ 3 h n.-··41,11- 1 -- // , 3 1. 4% 1 1 - I - 4'* '~ , . 6 h % ' ,/ , . 1. " . 4 % ... WI , . :L: 31 42/1. 9 -t~L -2 '-01 0 . 7 ' 1 0*, ,- ..... .7,-- -yea,I.·,A,' , 1 . . 52[ Y f .,4.., . col ·- il . '1% I 4 : .l /7* .\1 1 1.1995' i. . ,-- , 1 . p . . U~n .'C' 1- ..111 '4% . 2 ' F 04 J · ~ 1 3, 1. 11 1!.*4 -/ 1 ·Il -1 ' I ~4 , 6.31:%424514*%394*m'<t'114*~48<2 313L, . 1 1, 4 bi ·, / ,HI ;i. 3· f '%, 1 4)/A,-: . , H_I /11 . 0/ 4 r 4:311*Imt fjml#143.ity<Clf 6.11¢ : 4\ Il -0 0 .i.... '*24 7 :93."%2€ f , .·A < _.11 14372·~ 1~- -,0-700~ , io'j~~~ ii!.: :r·'4,.,At· lf:-AM = i:.fi 'PI..4.f''firt. , '' / , A-- <4 4 tr - .XVI . b.z"aftt 'f ..2 1.1- f . tfic:: .9...' t. -&4 1 - . A .r 1 66.r/9 1 .If , 11 li.IL :,ic .1:11 C //402 f:19 4.2 1 8: f' :,L:n---' ,. r ~fi,~,~47 4 -1, . . . /.17:* %~ ,;. :•,)- 1 4 '- 1 ...4 ; ~ 0 41¢-·f....:b' ,/2 = -4.h'D - 41 ;,(('A'i/,0.~9 1 I I .... ' . - . -7 74 --4. k.1 , .'. 1\ 1 A-,I; g I ~ ...C . •:~ 3-2>~1. . 3 . . 11. . % 1.1 2 4» 1 4% 2 '76, 1 ~,- - I f 'f .4 - ' 5 11 ' ./'72 : 1 ~i u.i:k tr,, . , ~ 6, 11.4 1,13 \ , P . I. 1 , , ..2 ..1 --r 4- 1 .r . - L. . 40. , # 4 0 1 r . .V , .. , , C I lit·ji: j: .2¥/ _Jt --0-4~1-~4 - -- r- 4 C 4 s. C 1. 61.1 4.12 .--- In, . . & 11.../.- ,... & , 1 .... , --- - , 4 .. , , 'n ' ' - .2 3 0 1 1,7 .' ·a 4- A:·..L " 1 .1 .U .i O . .1 1 1.-6 -9...... ./ · . 1 , 1,/ C 71' I 4 17,· .~RK'¢~1 , I 1..2 2 6-- E . j :d' . 1 il 1-/Al ',1 . /1 ...~ %- /. 1, 1/ $- I ,/4.A $ .... '. 11 4 0 J .14\¥m 1 4 .-, ,J 4 7 t; 1 • M & 4. 1 -r I./' ..... , . Ad .1 i..',:I..,Y' l' Vt?, 4 4 4. i.• 2 .. /'411 - . 0 - - 1, r< 1 4 . . Ht.J/>r ./- , : 4 'n . 7~ 4, '12... t .. I , A.m 1 I - , 11 01'• I • 4 .,1 . a .... 217 -- /t• ),1 i 'lit ir " 19 . 44 '' , 0 6. \ - I 112 -- ' , - Ki ..2 +1 .le,9 ~ ' 1 T. 2 14 b' .11 6--2,1 R T-t·;I::-,=C.,- -f}I~: 22-F f,4,~23.13, ~~,~;~.;Lf&,-~.e-%1:.1 . 1. -A .'-I. . M 3 , "j 1 1 ' & C ... . 'Ir:#.G,r •41( A -0 . 04; I . . 1. "71 '4 . 10 P j. ' . ' 6*I, . , ' ·E\ . .*. 1 . -, I I 1 1 - .. 'rl € 4 ;,7 1-.... f. 4 1 . \11 - .. : % . 5/ I ... .\. ... . V .. L I I. . ,/ '. .... 4, - I . .At ff „ , 1, 1 14, 4 --3..4-2,/- '44 "·t·91- ' ' 1 : _ - 1 . \:·= Jn.,~f. 4..#-7 . M ., I '0 -0 .. ... ./ . . I .. . I. - . I - . I z. y:, .1. 1 ..r 94.1- %.. - , 4 " \ i - , . + I , 11 1 11 6. I . ' 41 . ' 4, / . /4.11 I 11: . 1,3.-117 - '· .1/· . 4 : A: 4/ .& ..34 . . I .. », 00 :-Bit~Ski;·:~mici,-,3 rh:Z:40:1 ~F L 3 ---.'7 1·j,6 - ff-- 1 - LAw ..IC€' 'bt,1 li. '1,/ t>: .. f e.e :1 \ It L . . . 2/ 'r// . ¥Fn LfC -Yff ' t®: 4,1 .'19 7 t. 11. ..1.=*...1.. >flet¢0727 1~ t#ji .,..\.·f:·.''Ska'*' C.210 :-"90·~ 5.35~~~~~ti,?¢14 1, t ~,i / 6 .l n --et':t.••:VA**f ' Z I ' v 12 .0 1..\\ f & 1-2 I %':..# SM -b 1 .- .1 ., , i 3 4 441 '7 M le "9 1 . .. 3 4 :p 1 1,11',,1.-2 .'' a r z.;-- u "445 -1% ' . . - I... -y/' ©/ 4 1. \ . 7 . 1 a. e 1 f' .6 ·- :/b:,20(. - .r, U , ' ' f ... ~ 4~~~~~ ~ |~1 ~- |~4. I . 0..1 ' K I I. 9/ 0./ t., P;.%, . 2 U.-1-' 0 . eD . i,l 'f-M \ hfli.411:440 .32 -/ ff ·,1 r--' .4, . ... a 11- /41\7 ' 44 - 1\ . Att. t 't \ eo - --S -/ '4 # t, 1 3 4 Ill 1 11 41 ~,P\·,A.·, W .- } , ·4TP 9-- . I Ill 1 D _ * .Nt, \1 hal, I . 1 - . 1 Ard: 1 -· 2. 3 t. 4 4 /91*z •. .4 C Pf, ' -4. # .1 11 '/ 1 112 it N ... *.- / . / 6 . + r .. . '.1 h , .' - .Q f E , 4 .\£ f . ' , 'eg i . , 1. 1 4 " 1. .11. .6,4 .90 . . P . '13 / .# &05. - . ....1-*.. - '::. 4 " < Ill . O 17, I .,1 4. E0- ; 1» "r~ «/9,-i, ,· Ut. ip:, b . mu#97444**0 144/4. - i , p '41 2 .1 /1/ ' I I . .< 1 1 -1 . I , '' -4 2 .44 . 1 .1 , i,,161'.1,~ IN, -1 '1~,711'i: t" 1 1 , ·11 M 27 / .,-~ Ly,iti , r. ip. C .. $ 4 . I ~'*11 11,1 , 4, ..2. 11- 8 #-5462 53 tiv. 1 :41!Ill~t}11 1 , 1. 6, '' Py€,f , ' p , 1*\44/A -,f' 16 , ·' f€.8, i, i' 4 , i j 'i,)*.'f' , /1,1 0 *293' »Ch_ L ,·· 1. .M / 1 , . /-1 III 90 / t -,1 1 ..9 . - 11,1. 4 4/1,/ ./0/"Mieat fyi: 41< 3 i ·j i f-/c >t 3.3 5 1- r-' . 0 Vt r '1.4 . 0 *€ te,\t ,\>,, ,····.* ~\ t/' + .0.·11 -<29,- 1,j 1-. . >f-(f·<21 7 ly \ . 1., I 1 / r.,2= , id·' ' 1 1 \. 4- , .. . C ': C. -14 .t' O 1 .... p r' I .1 ' #.41 , C-- - r.%-4 \1/zooo I 2=-.1- : 2 - 25 ./ : 4 7.4 , 1 1 m 0 U ,#t r*+~ . v · ir 4..<(2, \13,11 .1~1 ~~~ ,: <i_~ 0- - Ct61>~ttt'S-f<' % ... 41i 1 4?Ji.t': C+Kt.,\ N.4 \\11'.1 4UA',, - f 2 1 ;.-'1 4 1,0- ' f\, 4 2.- W ; 4 ' INV Ub·,b·b LUUC/6/ L 31¥0 3klnel=t Z NOIld 7627 le!oueu!:I )1·led selsa Jo UAAO1 90oz SNOI1dO ON I.LIS 1NV-Id 1N30I1¥3*Il hl31¥M 3hlnln3 0111*Ban 1 + NOUdO L NOUd 9 NOadO £ NOIid 2 1 aw® Ul (U %§20 mm C 2 4 W 2 3 0 CL O w CE Z W LJ > 62&: E 0 W:&20 8: 231 4 o miiR2 LJ lilli it'111 + -/.6 0/ m <E 1 1 M 5§ E% GY 4 4 _ I A m 1. .. 0 1 a .E - Z a 0 F g:g c~ 0 8 : EN A = 1 al ... Z 1 G= 8 ==A I I Z. . O B - 1 0 ZOO A A -- L..Lg ~ ed ~ ~9 0 0 Sz 0 ..0 ~LI 8 *W saw 9 2% 6 ·i st = , 0 +9 . m z. 0 .' 2 $ . f -i : 82 - .8 . w w / . aE 1====1===1 3, - 0 0 I lia = 9 - y,tk ..\ .In® - 1.1 ....O = :tr=: :Ta : El rm 1 1 : tti/' * 1.1 x - A e 2 0 ali,WnN 1.3rotld = 822 mEF#1=4 - ag 1 2-1' L &4===1111 :ik='..~ = 18 . A . & A . 1 / A =Si - 4114 w 4 0-AH+1 11.4.42 Z 1 0 *11[.4-0-el ; S I rErgi.-*~ 1 i *% ' l V CD & 2 g 0 SWITCHGEAR 1 CD m f 1 14 X 65 ¢*- 2,#'fc *J''lst. *1/ CU m '11 '.3 0 - 0 124 ]AL b 0 8 - UU-UU : WEI 4 >W . 0 i=1 * a - . I. ..~11 1 11 L . 11 1, 11 - Aa l £ ---- 1 ---- -<0/97 ( e I t ill •00-got e 3 .OUC.LS N l I e 9- 9 1 I & ==23 1 l 9.424 .E gS '0 0 W l a 20 22 22 ML-101 MARK LAYOUT TO ESTES POWER PLANT MARYS LAKE ALINOHLAV 8 'A]a ~ LOL-lIN 'ON ONIMVNCI ~ .0-.02 = •I 3-1VJS E >° C 3nSSI 30 GWOJ3 31VU ' O Lt,C@L PRPA STEEL GENERATOR 96/6/6 31VE orw XE a]AOMeldV TO ESTES POWER~~.ANT 0/W Ag 63>133% 1-6 Ag NMVMU ~ orw Al G3N9IS3U orw 1rC 0002-EekLOI STR. T-A GV M H10013SMOH '3 0002 AlaM]SS¥ 3 NOUVONnO3 C3NOON'€V - 8nS A>1914 3>IV-1 SAMVIN M31A NVId a390dO}ld 318¥J MOM 96£ BolS388¥ 39kinS - AM¥(]NnOB NOISNVdX3 - 180ddnS Sne - trIOA¥-1 03SO,1081,1 - /// 'SNI 1103 '13 GN3931 3JIA@3S PRPA BOTTOM 7T- WOOD RETAINING WALL 80 MIDDLE 1101108 0 /01 00 96/02/21 88*20 L M .85,0¢SE N S310d 33SIN -- PAVED ROAD TO ESTES PARK EDGE OF PAVEMENT SHIELD WIRE STRUCTURE~ 1 1, WOOD RETAINING WALL--~ 3 2424'45* E 124.1 ' * CHP S 26'21' -- . 58. E 71.51' WAPA TPOB 3/17/2006 Mary's Lake Switchqear and Transformer Replacement Estimate 2008 QTY Price Total Cost responsibility Transformers 2 $800,000 $1,600,000 Estes Foundation 2 $20,000 $40,000 Estes Oil containment 2 $10,000 $20,000 Estes Circuit Switcher 2 $35,000 $70,000 PRPA Foundation 2 $5,000 $10,000 PRPA Switch 2 $5,500 $11,000 PRPA Foundation 2 $4,000 $8,000 PRPA Switchgear Isle 1 $650,000 $650,000 Estes Foundation 1 $50,000 $50,000 Estes Construction 1 $150,000 $150,000 50% Estes Removal of transformers 2 $40,000 $80,000 Estes Removal of building 1 $20,000 $20,000 Estes old CS removal 2 $5,000 $10,000 PRPA Contingency 1 $150,000 $150,000 50% Estes PRPA cost & misc work 1 $200,000 $200,000 50% Estes TOTAL $3,069,000 Estes Cost $2,710,000 PRPA Cost $359,000 Total minus Estes cost $3,069,000 01) 14& 7 cr) 1 N IN 4 LD 01 RI -0 0 E.- 22 1 0.1 M 1[% 1 IRi - L- S CD 1 - gl m . CD 1 1041 1 -- 'INI L1 ¤ Ig 01 9- I 2 =1 E & 0 1 N' 1 1 CO 21 1 - CN 1 ~ CL €0:2 R IN %3 M Lo I k k « 6 6 I fl 11 fi ·i E, ifTU '10 -92 ' 6 !0 & g* 2 £* ' Lb ~ig Q E~~= *~ J v g .3 '~~ IF 6 g E'E y g T E- a) b & A .mi i€ Mi~ 2 E Nicni Ct -C 01 Et; 9 «- .0 .- 0 u .21 -3 1 -10 0 ' f 3 j E f li~ Ef,1 i fli'{ ~ 81 :5 1 9 8 N i i .,®1-* A El-FIE 2' O 9.2 mui IM -- · 2 W g A22 2 @gl N i I =' 211 ME fe. 1& u) ur) N ~A& 88 1 0 . Novenn er ~tallation / Mobile SubltaloZ6ist ation R,?moval 2008 16 23_30 4 11 18 5 ~7-_28 weeks fr | PO_fcn· delivery -_ 48 weeks from PO f r eliveryF 30 weeks from PO for delivery Power and feed r I* A , ,. ' , . 44% 4 - A 0 4 .. r , 4 : *. S .t:#.cu~ , ' , 4 - -- a.4 n.. '1**.to~ ~90/ ~ , 1 \ ~ + 41 ' 1 4 -lf·.· 4 , .RL 1 I n. p: Nic?Nt· 4'M /. *r: -4 v~l, 11, 4. : \"4 ->,4 .. 4,J!14. &- -/ 1 . :.4-,42 em , . . I k 4 , g . L - • ~Ck~, , ' i ' P .1.1 9, , , k P 1% 1fr4>*.:fli~'AE.:. j ':~ C * .#wri '4. , 1 - .1 4.4 .3 .4 .- ihit'll*-I -'-' P 0 1/ lifilf/155 1 ijidj.-7/*TI' - 1 L , , t,4 . *,/ 1,0 , 4,3 'Mt, 2 ~W,-,41- t-.•. € 6 .3, • X 41 I 6 4 :74 j 1 ,.60 A : 1 · ./. - 44 k £ 4:-9 l 1¢2 .- a I' . lit . 1% I. A / -iy·f~:ti- 3 91_ti»/'41. M. ... " 1 3 '. ; 441 $ 1&6 it 0¥15.1.'a.cti- ..1 1 . I- 1 4; L 0 . ' 7 .. - 6 - ~·4 9 ¥*L. i N N. A· h '08:98?· Ovi"' .2 .1 1, I ..» -9 1 ill ... 4% - il'*i / ~0, pl /4 2 4.. . /1 41 22*%UF , I -9, , > ..'111 1* 11 I , 1:.di~ -- -·414 , h . p 1 _.1 d Fi 41* - t *ti'f< .r ft I th .fi te t#.2.- . £ i... . I * A Ye 1 1% '4).f I . I> - 11 1 . '. 4 5:.4,% f I=. *54. 7 €1 + ..,1 < 4616 j L-*# .4 '47 . .* 2 2 R.P r .1 42 .. ..I: 1: 2.¥42 lv~ 6. 4 4 .4- 2 1 fc I.,·r li; ./0.0 -- 1 I li . 44 Er S. 4 4/--. 7 . . 7 r..r~/// :r k I I g -,Apil,Ful:Ad % ' fs, 9/EV- , . *i,Jt,#im,1, P I"i.#M-X *~ . E '4 -l 0.9 ' 44 __rthMMI/,7/2 t ' -AM 0/* Itr 12'/9.11 - ~==m * M--m-%-li ? 14 / . ·t ' ?ft. · Tf-kimiwi -- s Y €m 1 4- P./1 . 2,21.al>10-9 - a -1 --= + =- 1 ®14¥#11/g. /5 '#X :* 4 15 W - 1 . i m,14. , + h.- . 1 f , t I it ll!,44)+AK/'r...A .. · z. Sl~U .. , ./ m 1 t#I AIG~51I//:rlfril 4 4 / la'.; 4/jad/#Mi :. ~ - ' ki!. f 3~t-i.Y,' ..€4. , b F pliwi l -I- 2 . ..,6.....A ...4. 0 1 UT Ir .. 4 81(126WIG C> - -1 3 ..Rk , 1 4. 1 /lik . I .4 8 '14 .E-e.= Vt * 3 ·9 '. + 1 ,1 41-711# 1 r.£1:2. ..0.t $ .6 r . f blin ~- Mt< ' 4 1 2,4€ I , 3 * ./ , <¥. '' I 4. 4 2% ' 73 - .. >4 , '6 . 7 ¥ 9< I 4.- t 51, 1 '49 , ';4' 14 14 P , t 4 14* . Overview of the Water and Light and Power Financial Plans Town of Estes Park Utilities Committee Meeting January 18, 2007 Presented by: Cil Pierce, Senior Financial Analyst HDR Engineering Inc. Overview and Purpose of the Presentation M Discuss financial and rate-setting policies o Present financial plans findings & results (revenue requirements) for the: U.L. 'ism.#.ma. Water utility -- :1,; i, 1 4 Light and power utility c] Review recommendations and D.*177~ 0 '31-,34~ ea.::A 3 ...0.~.'Ff rate options E..5,3 gaj.·i ~·~ *--6~ 1 -2·*fl:-5-~ W.1*4 WAE-43- 29%.~--- I Gain Committee recommendations *p.*.:·. I ·%** I '' *t ):IM ' =.Ill-'. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2 Why Establishing Financial/Rate Policies Is Important id Provides management with clear direction 8 Provides consistent and logical financial/rate (business) decisions 53 Provides future Boards with the basis or reasoning behind past decisions (documentation) 2 Helps the Town's customers to better understand the Board's philosophy E Provides a strong message to the outside financial community (bond ratings) HOR Engineering, Inc. 3 Policies that Promote Financial Stability The Town's utilities should continue to be managed to maintain financial stability over time. m Reserves & Minimum Level j/.it =- ... '. ti 1 m Capital Improvement Funding From Rates m Target Debt Service Coverage $-3.42-1 1 HDR Engineering, Inc. 4 Reserve Funds (Fund Balance) r Reserve account Imme#717911--=*1 (fund balance) policy is the Ens,_er.2----:-f most highly recommended --1=,6 '32 1 94 *164 W financial policy by the GFOA (Government Finance - Officers Association) L. Operating Reserve E] Capital Reserve HDR Engineering, Inc. 5 Operating Reserve &1 1 . - ~ Reflects the timing difference ~ ' 4'= 11- between billing for revenues t.~ 2~1~1 and payment of expenses ..9 ~9. b.=9. r .9 44./...a"/: b i Protects the utilities in case of -r,•Ir lippq.0-,IKi, unexpected expenses or cash ... i flow disruption 5- Town's established minimum 1-1 reserve level is 90 days of O&M expenses HDR Engineering, Inc. 6 Capital Reserves u Capital reserves are used to fund the cash flow requirements of capital infrastructure construction. o Assist in meeting variance -li in cash flow requirements from year to year a Town'S established minimum target level for capital reserves is 2% of the asset value. HDR Engineering, Inc. Other Reserve Policies pry~j,·- · a Maintenance of minimum reserves should not, on their own, trigger the need for a rate adjustment ei u Rates should be reviewed after two consecutive years of loss of revenue or diminishing reserves as a result of covering costs HDR Engineering, Inc. ~: r L. Capital Improvement Funding From Rates Policies On an annual basis, the Town should adequately fund an amount of capital from rates to maintain existing utility infrastructure a The Town should target funding from rates an amount equal to or greater than annual depreciation expense a As new large capital facilities are added to the Town's systems, consideration may be given to phasing-in rate impacts of this policy HDR Engineering, Inc. 9 Target Debt Service Coverage Policies a Minimum targets 1.30 to 1.50 on outstanding debt that carries a legal bond covenant £ Target of 1.25 on all outstanding debt service a Establishes financial health and stability to rating agencies a Benefits = possible lower interest rates on future revenue bonds HDR Engineering, Inc. 10 Overview of a Revenue Requirement Analysis (Financial Plan Development) _ 1 Compares the utility's Efi~ revenue with its expenses E Provides a measure of the adequacy of the utility's existing rates 11. (revenue generation) 341: ...1 . D Utilizes prudent financial planning 2 Allows for planning over A a longer time horizon HDR Engineering, Inc, 11 Cash Basis Methodology L . · ' h Overview of the Financial / Rate Framework + O&M Expenses + Taxes/Transfer Payments - + Debt Service (P&1) + Capital Proiects Funded from Rates = Total Revenue Requirements (i + Term) - Miscellaneous Revenues = Balance Required from Rates 9 Annual + Total Capital Projects Deprec. Exp.) - - Revenue Bonds (Bond Proceeds) - - Low-Interest Loans - Grants - Capital Reserves - Customer Contributions (e.a. SDC'sl = Capital Projects Funded from Rates HDR Engineering, Inc. 12 RE*y i Key Assumptions of the Analyses s Time period - reviewed 2006-2013 yi Each utility should "financially stand on its own" 3 Utilized the "Cash Basis" approach a Financial Planning Considerations: Established minimum reserve levels Use of reserves to keep rates low Review adequate financing of capital projects from - rates a Target annual depreciation expense Maintain minimum debt service coverage (DSC) ratios HDR Engineering, Inc, 13 Water Utility Financial Plan ict:% ard'"Btl:,31318~ 1%1-92"-m9'#.,---t,5' ~-22071~ '~!. Pir /.C.------ 1 ~*r /,o· °9*4* 9 HDR Engineering, Inc. 14 . Development of the Water Utility Revenue Requirements n Used budgeted revenue for 2007 - 2008; escalated 1% for growth 24:Wa®imE€aES through 2013 €§§~~~~t@t»*i, 513 Utilized utility's 2006,2007 and ~ 2008 budgeted expenses Escalated costs 1%- 8% 2 Taxes/transfer payments: Average $150,000/year HDR Engineering, Inc. 15 Development of the Water Utility Revenue Requirements (contfulled) u Debt Service WI51 10~f Existing $300,000 per year to 2010 ~~~ New debt in 2009 and 2012 I.-Al//8,1./ Totals $600,000/year Use of Development Fees reduces ~ to $380,000 per year , -,4-r--iff - 23 Capital (CIP) from Rates Targeting annual depreciation expense 2005 depreciation expense = $475,000 Gradually implement HDR Engineering, Inc. 15 ... Water Utility Capital Plan (Revenue Requirement continued) 21 Capital Project Highlights: Total $16 million Updated equipment Bureau area waterlines Mary's Lake WTP expansion, Pumping, 18" main ($13 million) Need to adequately fund CIP from rates: Phased-in funding for renewal and replacements $300,000 in 2007 to $480,000 in 2013 -r. i.=- - 6 Use $5.3 million of reserves for CIP funding fifili~lar~ul'ri~lillilli 0 $7.9 million in new bond issues 3>7,4. HOR Engineering, Inc. 17 Water Utility Capital Plan (000s) Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Capital Equipment $138 $103 $83 $124 $130 $184 $164 Waterline System Projects Total Priority One Projects $200 $125 $250 $250 $0 $150 $125 Total Priority Two Projects $0 $0 $150 $0 $425 $216 $230 Water System Master Plan Marys Lake WTF Expansion/Addition $431 $4,741 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MLWTF Expansion-BT Raw Pump 0 0 0 0 467 5,136 $0 FW Piping-MLWTF to 18"main & Misc. 0 0 0 0 149 1,540 $0 Engineering For Capital Projects 40 25 80 50 85 73 $71 Balance to Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 $O Total Water System Master Plan $471 $4,766 $80 $50 $701 $6,749 $71 Total Capital Projects $809 $4,995 $563 $424 $1,255 $7,298 $590 - Funding Sources Operations Reserve $509 $175 $213 $0 $0 $1,300 $0 Capital Reserve 0 0 0 44 845 2,158 $110 Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 New Bonds 0 4,500 0 0 0 3,400 $0 Total Sources of Funds $509 $4,675 $213 $44 $845 $6,858 $110 CIP Funded Through Rates $300 $320 $350 $380 $410 $440 $480 HDR Engineering, Inc. 18 4. . Summary of the Water Utility Revenue Requirements Budget Proiected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Revenue $2,418 $2,568 $2,598 $2,627 $2,656 $2,686 $2,716 Expenses Total Operations and Maintenance $2,174 $2,250 $2,312 $2,376 $2,445 $2,517 $2,592 Total Taxes and Transfers 135 144 145 147 148 150 151 Cap Imp Funded from Rates 300 320 350 380 410 440 480 Net Debt Service 6 105 363 357 166 384 384 Revenue Requirement $2,615 $2,818 $3,170 $3,259 $3,170 $3,491 $3,607 Balance (Deficiency) of Funds ($197) ($250) ($572) ($633) ($514) ($805) ($891) = Total Bat/(Def) as % of Present Rates 9.3% 11.1% 25.0% 27.4% 22.0% 34.1% 37.4% Proposed Rate Adiustment 0.0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% HOR Engineering, Inc. 19 Conclusions of the Water Utility Revenue Requirements "7rr?20"El...a.'wrm.=I~-I=. '/'161-'ll./. -// J~r='el·'~J 'I E Attempted to minimize the rate impacts by use of reserves m Plant development fees mitigate rate adjustment by: ---.-:2£.Cl"Gi= Funding capital 1?29'11 L. 1-m ~- ..211: + . 1~ =4.-92 Covering growth-related debt 1#f 1 -~~00'IL. ... 8 Rate adjustments are needed to:~ k....- - Cover inflation 11 Cover cost of renewals and replacements and debt Ensure debt service coverage ratios are met (through CIP from rates) HDR Engineering, Inc. 20 . Summary of the Water Revenue Requirement Analysis 3 Water rates are projected to be deficient during the test period due to capital expenditures and inflationary increases in 0&M 3 Capital expenditures are driven by regulatory, replacement, and growth needs 7 Revenue bonds require debt service coverage tests (covenants) to be met 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Water 0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% HDR Engineering, Inc. 21 Rate Design - The Next Step :=4- ... 4.1.==4=25 -I'-.-*%ij . 1./-. i//5/'. - 1 - HDR Engineering, Inc. 22 Objectives When Setting Rates 3 Revenue Stability and E- Simplicity Sufficiency (Administrative and w~ Cost-Based Customer Understanding) a Fairness and Equity 9 Feasibility T Ability to Pay D Legally Defendable a Continuity in Rate Philosophy 6 Conservation- Efficient Usage HDR Engineering, Inc. 23 S Water Utility Current Monthly Rates Overview of the Town's Current Water Rates (Adopted for 2007) Meter Size Meter Charges Meter Charges (Urban) (Rural) 3/4" x 5/8" $15.20 $24.35 1" 16.70 26.75 1-1/2" 20.30 32.50 2" 22.80 36.50 3" 52.30 83.70 4" 73.30 117.30 Volume Charges: Per 1,000 Gallons Residential - $/1,000 gallons $3.20 $5.12 Commercial - $/1,000 gallons 3.12 4.99 Pumped Flow - $/1,000 gallons 4.48 7.17 Bulk Water - $/1,000 gallons 3.58 5.73 HDR Engtneering, Inc. 24 bl Water Utility Proposed Monthly Rates - Urban Meter Size Present 2008 2009 2010 (Urban) Rates 3/4" $15.20 $16.05 $16.95 $17.90 1" 16.70 17.64 18.63 19.67 1-1/2" 20.30 21.44 22.64 23.90 2" 22.80 24.08 25.43 26.85 3" 52.30 55.23 58.32 61.59 4" 73.30 77.40 81.74 86.32 Volume Charges Present (per 1,000 gal) Rates Residential $3.20 $3.38 $3.57 $3.77 Commercial 3.12 3.29 348 3.67 Pumped Flow 4.48 4.73 5.00 5.28 Bulk Water 3.58 3.78 399 4.22 HDR Engineering, Inc. 25 Current & Proposed Water Average Monthly Residential Bills $*.may¥n'.·c ,~pq Water Utility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Rate Adjustment 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% Average Residential $31.20 Customer Bill (5,000 gallons) Rates After Adjustment $32.95 $34.79 $36.74 $38.80 $40.97 $43.27 Annual Adjustment $1.75 $1.84 $1,95 $2.06 $2.17 $2.30 Cumulative Impact $1.75 $3.59 $5.54 $7.60 $9.77 $12.07 HDR Engineering, Inc. 26 ' Concluding Comments and Policy Direction From Committee z] Revenue requirements are - financial requirements ft< 4/1/WI,4 - Cost-based Maintain financial stability ~ 23 Direction regarding timing and level of rate adjustments HDR Engineering~ Inc. 27 APPENDIX A WATER UTILITY SUMMARY FINANCIAL PLAN - 0 /9 0 0 00 1 0 1000 0,0 2 e ' G E & 1~ RA!; &2 28 9@%:919 8.2 1% 'trumNILLf)-9 tO a}CO r.1- pe O CO 1 2 10 00 M. r. 10) -CO 10 01) ~~*- UNW <~ ~~ 4 G/00(9/ 4 G M M. 8 €A 9.-- V eN- 9 ' 64 *8 64 "" ./ 48 V, 64 L G ZE°°co I co O- @EolE * a n & 0 2- N g 9 =2 =tz 2 32 0 0, 6 9- 32 O 10 'r- O . 0/ f U- 0 1- i . 0 : ; CD O 09 W e 00 1 11 com - e UN# 82 0 h 00 Co . 5 ~(Mizzi ® 209 ce V W I 0 0 1 - %0°1@ 20:RFRE 322 22 O LO 0 . g *Ng:W. % 9 /co„' el €4 22 12 00 CO 09 i ... - 1- 5 9 0 6483% 1 8 0 0~h ?co 3= to tO I. N. q : 0. ca k tri E =11 E ai 4.-h:i hte. to---I N N i I 322:#1 1 M - 1 - 0 . 64 Cy ne I. N 64 10> 6 8 4 0 Plo 1. 0 1 % § a ir %40 2%, A 2 5 2 W z i Lr> Wa -22 1 2 2 1 2 6 El 2 Q ts UD g e 39 .0-CO 01 9- to 01 0 10 M M 01 h 00 ~ <D 01 03 O 9- CO hot 29 - CD If) 8 r 0 , C. O 0 1. O CO 6 09 C.9 18- RE 19 g g 11 0- u; Acio 85 1* N g N g g ~ CD 4 €e 32 2 2 al - le €e e €e . m ~ 00 8°IZ 8 9 032*005 a E m m m 1 5 - 0,1.r);* . = £4 0 - 4 &Zg 0 - 1 0! -- h CL W 49 1 3 0 4 - u i t - - TN 1 9. m & 6 225 U-0 44 -h . 1 e·F N Naa 3~MagIC 25 la m g ad e -- cd '69 0 el ./ 2 B 8 - 0 E - 22 8 5 i £ E N 8.7 0 - as at> £ 3 2 ::e 0 LL i.&11 -5 . i / 1 / 9 m i 8&& BEE 620:4 & 2 32% 0 1 - Lf") N €. e V CO 00 €. 2 %4*·FC gism . r. 0 - I O - W UN 6 r p C 1, E CD J E %22&5 W -twi w E- 3 i -i 3 8 0 0<« 000.00< t- b-,-,-0 1- OZOMI-0. ¤¤¤ O.-0- 0 0 - 2%2 Budget Projected Rate Revenue $2,266,721 $2,289,388 $2,312,282 $2, 5,405 $2,358,759 $2,382,347 Miscellaneous Revenue 301,166 308,255 314,370 320,630 327,040 333,603 $380,000 $410,000 480,000 $356,699 $165,992 83,916 $2,615,358 $2,818,370 $3 170 042 $3.259,473 $3,169,664 $3,490,903 $ 606,736 2007 2008 2010 2012 2013 $149,462 $152,451 69£'06£$ fs L'£89'£$ •06'669'£$ P06'LVE'ES 989'Zt,l'£$ eoueleg und Bulpua letol 296'666$ t700'Z86$ £89'8*6$ 890'££6$ DLL'f[6$ eoueles pun u.inulnuill JaBJel $2, 97,644 $2,626,652 $2,656,035 $2,6 679,967 700 415 743,4 4 38,087 38,468 961$ SZ'ls 817 /$ jueulisnlv Ienuuv DL.9£ 96'ZE 02:'LE jueunsnfpv '@Ue selBy Water Department Fund Summary 335,813 343,809 The Town of Estes Park $100,081 sal™ lue-d 10 % 2 Se (Aous!0400)/eouel 3SEe.IOU 81<El utojd 86!40Ueig/Sie;SUBil/SeXE.L IBUOUIPPV 'sse-1 seed ·Aaa ssu Jueulisni (·suoo 196 000'g) 1[[a ienue Isekt All,WON efielaA¥ perations and Maintenance ations/Maintenance 762,968 eseaJOUI 8;B8 Wo# elluetekl 'Buo!1!Ppy pepeaN Jueunsnlpv ele}1 leuol ZIPPV Jueulisnlp axes and Transfers spure Jo *oua!0!Jec]/eoumee Revenue Expenses $ eficiecny) of Funds 00°39 O 0 C~ 01 m E 6,3 603 000#00 00 O 0 CD LO CO *RE.2 830) 8%:PR N 9-~~ ~ (41260.2 00040 0 0 000*73 0 0 % 00§§5 0 0-0- 0 O CD 8°88°00°gR C,5 9 8 m 9 U, O CON E'22 2 e CO m -04 10 CD °0918£ 8088080002 A 01 t 9 CR 9 9 %2 38% & 9% 2 22 O OLD O " 80 880808% h Ny 0 C q O 0 ci ~ ~ * ~ ~ E 69 eD €4 . 60 - 4 04%0 6.E t@c E ME &'ES@&$ E ES 2007 2008 2009 2013 ning Balance $2,931,711 $2,422,636 $2,247,904 $2,034,904 $2,034,904 $2,034,904 $734,904 Beginning Balance $1,565,000 $2,001,800 $ $55,855 Plant Development Fee 416,160 424,483 432,973 441,632 364,140 371,423 378,851 386,428 Capital Reserves used for Debt 300,000 300,000 250:000 unds For Capital Projects 43,500 845,456 109,500 ~ding Balance $2,001,800 $1,652,250 $524,416 nimum 2% Fixed Assets, 2005 $370,633 $370,633 $370,633 Budget Projected Inimum 90 Days O&M $594,01 $611,37 ding Balance $2,422,63 $ $ $2,034,90 $2,034,90 Water Department Fund Summary The Town of Estes Park Exhibit 1 Operating Reserve Fund Capital Reserve Fund (Restricted) . 4 32 32 32 32 y y y y 32 0 32 832 0 000 00000000 N recu cri 06 06 cri N cri - cri yyy -/ f ly#32322 Rg Et 900 66&00000 ,- CD C\J 03 co co e N cd - co 45 N 32 32 0 32323€yyyagy 2% g 090 00000000 f CD C\J co co co cd cd 05 - 06 tri 0 32% ty 32 32 4 32 2 32 %32 0 000 0000000= -criN 0 06 05 05 d 0-j - cr; a:yoy 3203232*32*32 Ag g 000 0©°(0©00 (00%050[9-73 [r) Eg g LO gg 04 2 Cd O C) LE N N mmoo U) 2 3 OZE 202 2*k 45% J Inal CE =322 arn- N Rate 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% %00 %0'0 %00 %00 %00 %0-0 SeseaJOul 8,861 paAoidd¥ I!ounoo 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 Budget Projected [1] Rate Revenue Growth Budget Budget Investment Income Budget Budget Miscellaneous Income Budget Budget Budget Budget efits - Medical Budget Budget efits - Other Budget Budget epair & Maintenance Budget Budget urchase of Water Budget Budget Budget ellaneous Budget and Supplies Budget SUO!10eUUOO JeteM 34% Ul LIMAOJB ou S! ajel# lelll SeleO!Pul 90£ e62d 106png 9002 [ L] Bond The Town of Estes Park Revenues Expenses Years Low Interest Loan Term in Years Escalation Factors ESCALATION FACTORS Rate 5.0 5.0 Water Exhibit 2 The Town of Estes Park Water Exhibit 3 Capital Improvement Plan Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Capital Equipment Capital Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Station Equipment 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Security Equipment 7,500 7,500 10,000 10,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 Communication Equipment 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Purification Equlpment 43,545 32,895 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Vehicles 70,000 42,000 27,000 67,500 76,000 130,000 110,000 Total Capital Equipment $138,045 $103,395 $83,000 $123,500 $129,500 $183,500 $163,500 Waterline System Projects Priority One Projects Stanley Circle 8" $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bureau Area 200,000 125,000 125,000 250,000 0 150,000 125,000 Total Priority One Projects $200,000 $125,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $150,000 $125,000 Priority Two Projects US 34 MacDonald's to Church $0 $0 $0 $0 $425,000 $0 $0 Hill Streets 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 Panorama Circle 0 0 0 0 0 216,000 0 Twin/Meeker/Longs Drive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Park View Lane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eagle Cliff Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ponderosa Avenue (CH) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadylane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 Crystal Tank - Sanborn&Ponderosa 0 0 0 0 0 Sanborn - Carriage/Whispering Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hondius Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spruce Drive / Lawn Lane 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 Old Moccasin Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whispering Pines Drive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carriage Drive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Priority Two Projects $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $425,000 $216,000 $230,000 Water System Master Plan Marys Lake WTF Expansion/Addition $431,030 $4,741,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MLWTF Expansion-BT Raw Pump 0 0 0 0 466,895 5,135,845 0 FW Piping-MLWTF to 18"main & Misc. 0 0 0 0 149,061 1,539,674 0 Engineering For Capital Projects 40,000 25,000 80,000 50,000 85,000 73,200 71,000 Balance to Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Water System Master Plan $471,030 $4,766,337 $80,000 $50,000 $700,956 $6,748,719 $71,000 Total Waterline and Master Plan Projects 671,030 4,891,337 480,000 300,000 1,125,956 7,114,719 426,000 Total Capital Uninflated 809,075 4,994,732 563,000 423,500 1,255,456 7,298,219 589,500 Funding Sources Operations Reserve 509,075 174,732 213,000 $0 $0 1,300,000 $0 Capital Reserve 0 0 0 43,500 $845,456 2,158,219 $109,500 Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Bonds 0 4,500,000 0 0 0 3,400,000 0 Total Sources of Funds $509,075 $4,674,732 $213,000 $43,500 $845,456 $6,858,219 $109,500 Capital Improvments Funded Through Rates $300,000 $320,000 $350,000 $380,000 $410,000 $440,000 $480,000 ~ TOWN of ESTES PARK <*+ - Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Light and Power Department Financial Plan Background In June of 2006, HDR Engineering was hired to do a Financial Plan for the Light and Power Department. HDR was to prepare a Financial Plan to include the Mary's Lake Substation and distribution system improvements. The Financial plan would highlight any budgetary shortfalls and recommend supplementary funding options, i.e. rate increases or revenue bonds, while maintaining a 90-day O&M fund balance. The Fund Summary and Capital Improvement Plan are included in this packet. The 30 plus year old Mary's Lake Substation is scheduled to be rebuilt in 2008. Improvements include 2- 25 MVA transformers and a new Substation distribution center with a total of 6 circuits. Estimated project cost is $4,000,000.This project will be funded by the Light and Power, but designed and built in its entirety by Piatte River Power Authority. Mike Dahl, Division Manager of Electrical Operations from Platte River will present their construction procedures and practices. $2,000,000 for distribution system improvements has also been included in the financial plan. These improvements will facilitate transferring load between the Estes and Mary's Substations, increasing system reliability and flexibility. Budget NA Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the HDR 2007 Financial Plan, not necessarily at this meeting. . 1 Light and Power Utility Financial Plan 53&' i.:.: i.~17~1·'1~¤.im81,13 «.$3~# k,it -~:i.~.4~'b. 3-1 44 9,1 -24 .- ¥2 EJER Town of Estes Park Utilities Committee Meeting January 18, 2007 HDR Engineering, Inc. Development of the Light and Power Utility Revenue Requirements / ' '351'4 '-k 'Id 441 • Same methodology as water 8 • O&M: Average $9 million/year 4 m Taxes Transfer Payments: irw,Wwl £4.. 1 .0- Average of $1.1 million/year • Debt Service Payments: ~9- lit . New bond issue: 2008 for substation -1.1 -/ I'll'-A . Total = $785,000 per year 2008 to --/8 trif/Mpr. 9- 1 AWNDWN - 2013 9 ..Ek Wwum ·.... m Capital (CIP) From Rates: ///5 y Wi /// - Annual depreciation expense: ~ ~~~~~~ ~ $520,000 in 2005 Begin 2006 at $921,000; increase ....4wki>019."Ill. to $1.3 million by 2013 2 HDR Engineering, Inc. . ~ Light and Power Utility Capital Plan (Revenue Requirements continued) -pr¥2_1EWS.F.GM-.'I 'm'.-/ Ll:( ~3[' 12*Er '·~DI 44 • Capital Project Highlights: *4,4 th.gf,~~ $15.6 million total 541 1 Yl» 614 Mary's Lake Substation upgrade in 2008 4%49 40% increase for transformers due to rise 4411 ~ 42?t¢ 3 in copper Distribution system improvements 3 HDR Engineering, tnc. 1 Light and Power Utility Capital + Plan (000S) .,1 . -N. *'Mith// 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 its' Description >*f Building Remodeling $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 114 Station Equipment 5 4,000 55555 :~f Office Equipment 23 15 15 15 15 15 15 5*, Data Processing Equipment 96 45 40 40 40 40 40 4%£. 180 180 180 180 180 Transformers 180 180 49 Communication Equipment 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 14% Vehicles 276 42 218 51 25 44 42 CM' i 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 te- Street Lights N*: Poles, Towers and Fixtures 20 15 20 20 20 20 20 Ati; Overhead Lights 100 100 100 750 700 230 600 420 2,484 425 144 144 798 408 4,#p Underground Conductors 44'. Balance to Reserves 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 ji Total Capital Equipment $1,209 $7,025 $1,092 $1,295 $1,219 $1,421 $1,400 @% f Funding Sources - Operating Reserves $209 $0 $12 $160 $29 $176 $100 Capital Reserve 0000000 Low Interest Loans 0000000 New Bonds 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sources of Funds $209 $6,000 $12 $160 $29 $176 $100 Capital Funded Through Rates $1,000 $1,025 $1,080 $1,135 $1,190 $1,245 $1,300 4 HDR Engineering, Inc. 6.1//4 + Summary of the Light and Power Utility 34 Revenue Requirements (000s) Budget ProJected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ~4 1 Total Revenue $10,740 $10,948 $11,170 $11,395 $11,624 $11,858 $12,097 Expenses %%34 Total Operations and Maintenance $8,162 $8,476 $8,679 $8,889 $9,234 $9,594 $9,968 ~f, '4 Total Taxes and Transfers 1,122 1.145 1,167 1,190 1,213 1,236 1,260 Capital Funded Through Rates 1,000 1,025 1 080 1,135 1,190 1245 1,300 Debt Service 301 783 782 786 784 786 787 Change In Working Capital 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 Revenue Requirement $10,585 $11,428 $11,708 $11,999 $12,421 $13,011 $13,466 Balance (Deficiency) of Funds $155 ($480) ($538) ($605) ($796) ($1,153) ($1,369) Total Bat/(Det) as a % of Present Rates -1.5% 4.6% 5,1% 5.6% 7.2% 10.2% 11.9% Proposed Rate Adjustment 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% HDR Engineering, Inc. 5 !*0 3% Overview of the Proposed Reserves - 9% Light and Power Utility (000' s) awl'@0*964 ;Cit @% 44 49 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance $2,701 $2,492 $2,492 $2,480 $2,321 $2,442 $2,416 Minimum 90 Days O&M $2,041 $2,119 $2,170 $2,222 $2,308 $2,398 $2,492 Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance $0 $0 $0 $O $O $0 $O Minimum 2% Fixed Assets, 2005 $220 $220 «4~j HDR Engineering, Inc. 6 '1 . Conclusions from the Light and Power Utility Revenue Requirements P 1' 17.11 L.A..14*// %« 4% m Utility must adequately fund capital (CIP) from & rates for renewals & replacements. Helps to '44/ maintain debt service coverage ratio. 0% e New bond issue and debt in 2008 requires rate 9 adjustment. • Future year cost of living adjustments needed for 40 33 cost increases and maintaining minimum reserve balance. m Monitor reserve levels and develop capital reserve, as possible. HDR Engineering, Inc. ;Ptl i)~ Summary Conclusions of the Revenue *3% Requirement Analyses 10~ • Similar to water ~ • Light and power rates are projected to be deficient 2008 to 2013 due to capital expenditures and inflationary increases in 0&M t~ m Capital expenditures are driven by replacement, 44#PR regulatory and growth needs $* • Revenue bonds require debt service coverage 9 8 tests (covenants) be met 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Light & Power 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 8 HDR Engineering, Inc. W#/PY.9.4 * Light & Power Current & Proposed Monthly Residential Rates J©77!" ::.-' =.&.i» a.-3= -:..92-/.rl. 44 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 9*f Residential ~i~ Customer charge per month $4.30 $4.42 $4.51 $4.60 $4.69 .* Energy charge per kWh $0.08447 $0.08684 $0.08857 $0.09034 $0.09215 ~ Residential Demand * Customer charge per month $5.38 $5.53 $5.64 $5.75 $5.87 $9.73 w Demand charge per kW (9/1-4/30) $8.92 $9.17 $9.35 $9.54 Energy charge per kWh (9/1-4/30) $0.04609 $0.04738 $0.04833 $0.04929 $0.05028 Energy charge per kWh (5/1 -8/31) 30.08447 $0.08684 $0.08857 $0.09034 $0.09215 HDR Engineering, Inc. 9 349 4 Light & Power Current & Proposed f? Monthly Commercial Rates ail=U'.1, $*?187 9 43 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 350 Small Commercial Customer charge per month $7.80 $8.02 $8.18 $8.34 $8.51 ..*~i Energy charge per kWh $0.08459 $0.08696 $0.08870 $0.09047 $0.09228 f~*~ Large Commercial 3+4 Customer charge per month $10.76 $11.06 $11.28 $11.51 $11.74 40* » Demand charge per kW $10.04 $10.32 $10.53 $10.74 $10.95 - Energy charge per kWh $0.03633 $0.03735 $0.03809 $0.03886 $0.03963 HDR Engineering, Inc. 10 W. # Current & Proposed Light & Power Average Monthly Residential Bills Light and Power Utility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Rate Adjustment 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Average Residential Customer $47.31 Bill (520 kWh/month) Rates After Adjustment $48.26 $49.22 $50.21 $51.21 $52.24 $53.02 - Annual Adjustment $0.95 $0.97 $0.98 $1.00 $1.02 $0.78 Cumulative Impact $0.95 $1.92 $2.90 $3.90 $4.92 $5.70 11 HDR Engineering, Inc. off Concluding Comments and 4 Policy Direction From Committee 2241%y : ---I- . 2 Revenue requirements are 44% 4'i'' 12/I designed to meet L&P's financial requirements r.Wril-4 Cost-based Maintain financial stability 9 Ilk ............ m Direction regarding timing and level of rate adjustments 12 HDR Engineering, Inc. 0 1.' . 4 Proposed Combined Average Monthly $446 '*-e / Residential Bills •*if, Water Utility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 tit Rates After Adjustment $31.20 $32.95 $34.79 $36.74 $38.80 $40.97 $43.27 *4' (5,000 gallons) 1, Annual Adjustment $1.75 $1.84 $1.95 $2.06 $2.17 $2.30 4 Light and Power Utility ©20 Rates After Adjustment $47.31 $48.26 $49.22 $50.21 $51.21 $52.24 $53.02 (520 KWH) J Annual Adjustment $0.95 $0.97 $0.98 $1.00 $1.02 $0.78 Combined Combined Utility Bill $78.51 $81.21 $84.01 $86.95 $90,01 $93.21 $96.29 Combined Monthly Impact $2.70 $2.81 $2.93 $3.06 $3.19 3.08 HDR Engineering, Inc. 13 0 . .1 4 APPENDIX LIGHT & 9•WER SUMMARY FINANCIAL PLAN ..1 . 0 Z: R°§.%.9.< 2000518 2 Cy. i co Am@010 9*11 8283*d 6 8 = 21 =: 55 % i#96: M:I: MERREr./2-1WN 02 CU 0 10 0 0- N M N . M : 955 p N & p ch f p 4 64 - + r US* 4 N N 0 69 (A - e ee - V €8 {A :MIS 200°88 q . . Mna *01* §9§§25§66#639 09 R# R°R* IG :4. 4 g @ 5 d - h * 04 =,4 :!2 : 54 49 Cl CH 1,1 1 E r.62 N N N N cy %20%1% asin e. Cl- LO „ - 0, - -34222 W r- te te - - e €e - €4 64 64 e e . M p y 5 - E U g| * 8 &8 2!m 9!°089!41 200028 5965 1 2 2% 1 3 5 2 -- 5 5 2 = 3 21 8-1 - a= RB 2 em 1.0. 0 051& 35:315 3-,2 ps #- G 2 6 2% Di de 6A t" * ie 00000 0 !* 6-E-la- Em!% al-IB-*1167#-KS99 2% ME M el CL. am'm 41 i A & Si EEG v .cy 0- : N' a Cul N LO r - % r " + 64 64 -S/co : 0000 0 - Em m m 1§*25§ C. g :409 93 Rm Re°.tg - 2 -ilia 1-2 £ - g 0.--103 30 5% 5 92 Extik 1 - 2 eA g 92°°8~8 te e 0 .0 N C. d =EN m,4 2 231 Z % R FIt @Fil)~E- SM-IR §*SBiSE&%FER* Rm ~6 1-°°M-E-8- 2=°°28 -r 52 cid : age ·e 2 cia; 0) A 1 4-} 1 0) - 16 N I 10 1 - 8&1221: 2313 5 2 5% WRR . 35 3 .33 Ul d 0 4-4 00 - ,- - r 69 69 €A 0 0,- Lf) 01 - .Ill ¤ M 69 8 9 0 s : 0 ,° I & 4 4 :3 g &10.00. 80002 11) 9 64 f - Cl p 4 1 r 10 1 d 81 4*63 1% ill t i- i 2 61-0 LO O - g n d f m 3.81 0 I - ~E YE E: 3€ I) 6 1 (D /1 p i 33 .20 2 C C e - - B a E n 0 8 - - I - 05 C / 0 ro cm . C 0, 2% 8 : c O 62 al al> ® fy_%351 -~_233 5 £ 1 0 :< :i i i dll * 5 . 1 -31&! 0 : : 11 %1 El@Etfg 24!flf fl j ,&3:~ 3 : S ,~3 3 3 i 8 i 00.> O - °- 324 22 ANESS:& 8222313 03 (66 L 6$ ~L'9LD'~$ 299'LOL'Z$ aoueleg 0,0/gs 0'0%4 0'028$ 000'086$ 000'02$ 0'088$ 000'02$ 9002 'Slassv Pext: 962 ulnullu 2007 2012 taneous Revenue 561,382 87 01 L 1'26•' $ ~0;'86% 817'80£'Z 69 Zi' Budget Projected $10,740,392 $11,170,016 $11,3 11 t,LE't,LO'L$ 52,651 (309 9$ @Spajoil IVIEd WOJ:I es,iwoue,wsaxil leuill'PP¥ Ssal $5,089,474 $ Light and Power De m ent Fund Summary es for Service $10,208,573 $10.833,420 1 The Town of Estes Park 2 575 LE'LDS 00'lE; 289'092'Z aouet/8 pund and Maintenance tions and Maintenance tai mprovements Funded Through Rates Balance (Deficiency) of Funds SelpH luese,d 10 % e se (/buaio!}aa)/les rejol esee,oul eley wo,j a nue:,88 leuc!1,PPV papeaN tualutsfl pv eley leuo!;IPPV 0'jek' 069„A00 80!AJes lq@O asee,Oul mew Pesodoid 184¥ OSO (HM)l OES) Ille ialuoisno lenuapisebi Ailliuot, ene, axes and Transfers equirement Rese Fund Revenue ' 3, 32 Be ae £%003:gig Z : 000 cu m N m 06 CO e I CrS - CO C y y y 0 8 y y y y y 32 8 . 000 OOOO1O COl N on N 09 00 <9 M 4 (9 - M O 0 0 ZO O 0 -0 -0 0 & 0 323Ry 3% & , + 3% h + 6\ C\1 0~ N 000 0000!0000 0 cu co N c,5 00 ci c·) I n - m 4) 2 ggi ggiggigg 2% 2 N cul c¥·9 Al C¥ 00 09 CO CU <9 - CO 0 32 32 y gggggggg :g :g 000 N „ C\1 CrS 06 co co N cO - M u C\1 2% g 222222 . N c O 32 0 32 lo C\10 M N CD -a 3 22 I C 3 :fi, 1,1%3 j i B 1- 3 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 5.0% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0/00.0 %0+0 %0-0 %0-0 %00 5680 SeSE@JOul alek' paAoiddv poun03 Budget Projected [1] Rate Revenue Growth Budget Budget Investment Income Budget Budget Miscellaneous Income Budget Budget Budget Budget Benefits - Medical Budget Budget Budget Repair & Maintenance Budget Purchase of Power (Cost Increase + Growth) Budget Budget I neous Budget Budget %1 Joj 6uiuueid JaAe,AOLI ake X341 '41/AOJB %8 buioualiedxe Allueurlo s! UA•01 841 lell; Semo!Pu! Egg efled lebpre 9008 [ L] Debt Service ght and Power Exhibit 2 Revenues Expenses nterest Loan he Town of Estes Park Escalation Factors ESCALATION FACTORS Term in Years Benefits - Other The Town of Estes Park Light & Power Exhibit 3 Page 1 of 2 Capital Improvement Plan Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Capital Equipment Building Remodeling Building Remodeling $10,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $101000 $12.000 $12,000 $12.000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Station Equipment $5.000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Base Mary's Lake Substation Upgrade 0 0 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000.000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5.000 $5,000 Office Equipment $15,000 $15,000 Miscellaneous $7,500 $22,500 $15,000 $15,000 $151000 $15,000 Pitney Bowes Folder/Inserter Machine 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $22,500 $22,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Data Processing Equipment Network Server $17,500 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 $401000 $40,000 $40,000 AS400 Upgrade 25,000 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 Mail Gateway 15,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 Click2Gov online Payment Software 0 0 20,235 0 0 0 0 0 Security Locks 0 17,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE Qrep Report Wider-eis/land 0 18,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE Qrep Repor·t Wirter-GMBA 0 9,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 Network Equipment 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $57,500 $95,850 $45,235 $40,000 $40000 $40,000 $40,000 $40.000 Transformers PO #20403-Western United Elec. Transformers $56,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PO #20405-Hamiltion Assoc =Transformers 17,688 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40% Increase Due to Rise in Copper 0 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 $164,528$180,006 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 Communication Equipment $7,500 Wireless Base Unit $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7.500 $7.500 $7,500 Cell Extender 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Security 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $12T500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 Vehicles $0 60 $0 9611-H 4900 (Bucket) (L&P) $0 $260,000 $0 $0 $0 02' Ford Explorer S-Trac *&P) 0 0 0 26,500 0 0 0 0 99' Jeep Cherokee 4X4 (L&P) 0 0 0 26,500 0 0 0 0 98' F700 Bucket 4X4 (L&P) 0 0 0 140,000 0 0 0 0 03' Jeep Liberty(L&P) 0 0 0 251000 0 0 0 0 05' Jeep Liber·ty(L&P) 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 97' Ford Fl 50 4X4 (L&P) 0 0 0 0 26,000 0 0 0 01' Ford Fl 50 4X4 (L&P) 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 06' GMC K3500 4X4 (L&P) 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,000 0 98' Cat DP45-D2 ForkliR (L&P) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,000 PO # 19880-Altec Industries-2005 Intl 7400 4X4 187,727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PO #20383 - Spradley Barr-2006 Ford F550 4X4 44,117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duty Truck #20-2000 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bombarier Snowcat #84-1979 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jeep # 19B-1006 Jeep 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snow Cat Rubber Trac 0 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 4X4 Van or Utility for meter Testing Equipment 0 0 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 $388,844 $276,000 $42,000 $2181000 $51,000 $25,000 $44,000 $42,000 4 4 Page 2 of 2 The Town of Estes Park Light & Power Exhibit 3 Capital Improvement Plan Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Street Lights New Development Only Subdivision Style Lights $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $&000 $20000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Poles, Towers and fixtures Service Extensions $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Small Projects 7,000 7,000 5,000 7.000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Street Light Poles (Various) 0 8,000 5,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8.000 $12,000 $20,000 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20.000 $20,000 Overhead Lights Conductor/System Upgrade Program $50000 $50.000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Service Extensions 10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Small Projects 14,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Old Ranger Road to Fish Hatchery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500.000 Allenspark 3 Phase Tree Cable Phase 1 0 0 0 0 650,000 0 0 0 Allenspark 3 Phase Tree Cable Phase 2 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 0 0 From GOS 21 to Cliff Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 129,777 0 $741000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $750,000 $700,000 $229,777 $600,000 Underground Conductors Service Extensions $20,000 $50,000 $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $£000 Small Projects 30,000 50,000 30,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Fiber Optics Misc Laterals 35,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 PO Parking Lot 0 5T000 0 0 0 0 0 0 MacGregor Ranch UG 0 0 0 34,000 0 0 0 0 Distribution System Improvements 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 Stanely Park Underground Projects 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Park River West to Elm Underground 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220,000 Good Sam to top of Switchbacks 0 150,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 Top of Switchbacks to Glen Haven 3 Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 544,658 0 Marys take Road Bridge Replacement 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Engineering for Capital Projects 31,000 70,000 414,000 70,800 24,000 24,000 132,932 68,000 $1861000 $420,000 $2,484,000 $424,800 $144,000 $144.000 $797,590 $408,000 Balance to Reserves $0 $0 $54,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Equipment $952,872 $1,208,850 $7,025,000 $1,092,300 $1,294,500 $1,2181500 $1,420,867 $1,399,SOO Funding Sources Operating Reserves $31.000 $208,850 $0 $12,300 $159500 $28,500 $175,867 $99,500 Capital Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low Interest Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Bonds 0 0 6,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sources of Funds $31,000 $208,850 $6,000,000 $12,300 $159,500 $28,500 $175,867 $99,500 Capital Improvments Funded Through Rates $921,872 $1,000,000 $1,025,000 $1,080,000 $1,135,000 $1,190,000 $1,245,000 $1,300,000 TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER TRENDS Type Summary Date December-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 7.425 3.889.026 0.5% $35{).673 42% 42% $0.0905 524 $47.22 Gen Serv Small 1.593 2,067.802 0.5% $ 184,528 22% 64% $().0894 1,297 $115.73 Gen Sen' Large 92 2,832.890 0.5% $171692 21% 85% $0.0618 3(),695 $ 1.893.10 Residential Demand 398 735,353 -0.6% $64,688 8% 93% 9 ).09.39 1.846 $162.32 Res Energy / Time of Day 237 405.440 0.6% $24.854 3% 96% $0.0634 1,718 $105.28 Municipal 61 253.959 1.8% $19,673 2% 99% $0.0776 4.160 $322.21 RMNP - Small Admin 19 62,974 -0.1 % $2,870 0% 99% $0.0457 3.264 $148.78 RMNP - Large Admin 6 64,471 0.1 % $2.689 0% 99% $0.0422 10.745 $448.2.3 Wind Power 99 0 #DIV/0! $2.203 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A Res Basic Energy 16 20967 4.4% $ 1.782 0% 100% SO.()86() 1.394 $ 117.71 GSS-Comml-Energy TOD 13 17.789 0.4% $ 1 202 0% 100% $0.0683 1.341 $90.71 GSL-Comml -Time of Day 1 10,745 0.0% $729 0% 100% $0.0679 ID,745 $728.77 Outdoor Area Lighting 16 0 #DIV/0! $22() 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A Res Time of Day 3 6,002 -10.8% $165 0% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! RMNP - Administrative 2 495 0.0% $28 0% 100% N/A N/,A N/A 9,982 avg $830,998 100% annual revenues at this pace: $9,971,978 budget: $9,741,005 projected over/under: 1 \21().9-1 1 1 en 4. -.1~ LJul,nw,1 g_, b- , .. 1 db .,-I.v'-'..--4..f 4&4*0»'I~=Im v.1.85 91 Wf '·~ -I 1 . 1 1 V0 r m Budgeted 2006 le SenlleA hi 9003• eoedejuerno 06 .2,00 + + L&P Revenue Progress $9,800,000 $9,750,000 - _ $9,700,000 - Revenues $9,650,000 - - 000'009'6$ ~ - 000'099'6$ - 000'009'6$ MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND 25500 23500 21500 4 1 -V ---2005 19500 - -0- 2006 17500 15500 13500 11500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTHLY ENERGY PURCHASES - - 74 12,000 1- -- - - -- - - - - - 5 0 - .... , - 6% 7 >2 - 53 /4 -77- 10,000 # 2 37. -- t. 7- - - 7 4 - - 9-0 0. 7 07 ~Lf 4, i t 31 ft- ~- m~- 0-' ¢7 1- ,~ 11: 111. 2 » 6 2- *0 9 - 94 2~ 02004 8,000 P J f . 0.& m $ I . m f . * 0 % 99 4 7 4. :.0 (7 0 .. 55 . .4 . :g {~ 9 . I El 2005 €3 ~ %4 43 4 - *.: 3.? E- 3 0% 40 0. Et / 02006 » . 4 45 «Gr. 39 f~~ $ ~~I 0 *t~ $ 113 U · 3% 30 2 11 1 1 6,000 47 42 : 39 e f %.3. 4 4.: 4. /. S: 2>1 m 0 0 / m / 1 0 m $ : 5>4 ?fly «f' 40 21 0« 6/ 3 56 40 02 0- 39 0 2 03 2% 4.2 2% r 4,000 9 - 9 72 9 . 3·: f: 3 02 0/ 09 *. 6:, 4-· ~ 425 3- ¢ 4 4 4 0 tufi 9 1%7 2/ R I 321>- 30 ,--~ 01 9 fift 0~ ~ M~ ~ ~ i / 2,000 34 4.- 14 M % 62 31: 11 2-1 4.3 4 : 311 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 6 4646&54*JG#VIA «9*ki »AWAIRAP*%44\Nt'' *APNNUE'NAJAAA \23339 \\» 94% 4% i I ' . YTD ENERGY PURCHASES 120,000 100,000 -- 1 unip 4 80,000 1.61% YTD 2006 VS - - 90 3% 1, & 3 i -7 02004 2005 w. 2• 3 M 31I~ * mi •2005 :.41 2% m Am Wim 4 60,000 7 1 8.: 11 51:4 6 1 3 1 3.~ ff: 0 1 0 200~ 1 40,000 20,000 4 54= 2.0 55 iii =Ii{ 00* i 1 51/ *AE 53,% .: V 5€m 93 %21* 43 41.- 45<• .&/< ./~ 4<.31 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD POWER COST vs. BUDGET ($1,000) OBUDGET OACTUAL 5,000 4,500 - 4,000 - 7>- M :>t .x - 5 3,500 2% E-* i i 3,000 3~- & 4 :.:% :%: 7 .A * 4% 2,500 « 1 %%: 72 2,000 v 2% 1,500 .... 1,000 -- -- 500 -- tri *: E.%1 1 :>5 ·« ·Xk Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 7 0,411.x<4 24,3 »Nx» N©*ae**44*a YTD MWH Purchased I ......8. ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH ($1,000) 1,200 1,100 1,000 - -- 900 1 %12 02004 800 ~ - ~ ~ - 82005 700 f -1 , 0 2006 ~ 600 1 1 -11-Itt-It-1 1- 500 1 400 k '1111 -lili $ 2 300 0 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR TO DATE ELECTRIC SALES ($1,000) 12,000 6.27% 2006 YTD VS 2005 10,000 - _ 10,138,0001_ _ ~ 0 2004 - 8,000 -1 CZZ] 2005 - 6,000 0 2006 If - Budget _ I 1 . 4,000 2,000 % Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 8 la TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPARTMENT TRENDS Type Summary Date December-06 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of % of Avg Avg Avg # of accts Gal Growth Revenues Tot Revs Cum Rev/Gal GaUCust Rev/Cust Urban Residential 2,663 13.()36.435 0.5% S75,52 l 37% 37% $0.006 4,495 28.36 Urban Commercial 741 13.418,983 0.8% $51,273 25% 62% $().()04 18,()93 S69.14 Rural Residential 1.3()1 4.71(),325 0.7% S53,009 26% 88% $().()12 3,625 $40.76 Rural Commercial 100 1,950.618 -2.8% $12.190 6% 94% $0.()12 19,332 $121.59 Bulk Water 1 ,347,975 1.8% S]2,451 6% 100% $0.()12 avg: $204,444 100% annual revenues at this pace: $2,453,325 budget: $2,137,800 projected over/under: | 0315,52.5 ~ . (D J C E0 ~----~ 00. 13 ..................9.................. 42 m Budgeted 2006 le senueAahl 90 eoed lue]Jnj Water Revenue Progress $2,300,000 - - tj /2,06 4, $2,250,000 - $2,200,000 - $2,150,000 - 000'00 L DES - 000'090'1$ - 000'000'ZES 1/15/2007 Water Sales by Month ($) 350,000 - 300,000 - --- ----- - r 250,000 4 2- 7 - 5,42, 200,000 - - ' 4 4, 29 - - ¤2004 3017/ ts 4 -2 ~ 02005 150,000 - - --- 3 3 34 5. 52 6 -7 1¤2006 7 /V. 100,000 / /4-tift / 5 15 / / M 6 4 4 , 5/ 5 4 8 F 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 E #7V *$55 50,000 4 5 , F' 0 31& sp/ / / 4 5 5 lt' 11 ' 1 ' 0 --6-_-4 2. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Water Sales Year-To-Date ($1,000) 3,000 2,500 41 ---- ... $2,128,000 - 2,000 M. 2005 . CZZZ]2006 1,500 - ----1 -Budget k 8.88% 2006 YTD VS 2005 1,000 r- 7 -=-% 7* f /2 500 7 1 .2 2-7 : . 2 4, 4 4 e . 11511 IMI o J-Ml IMII 21 9 1 - - id .. - - - L.- - - e. - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RW5 8"111»X».«Nift 11»306»>ax»>2«1 :d,»43«~ 1 b 'W"xmx©«»ax©~~xxx~., F««««X« 24>.3 3 r ' :626.»06\9<»6»X«\Wd