The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Utilities Committee 2008-02-21AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, February 21, 2008 Preparation date: February 13, 2008 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT Light and Power Department 1. Rebar Tree LED upgrade a. Request to upgrade from incandescent to LED 2. Budgeted Primary Wire trailer a. Request to purchase trailer Water Department 1. Budgeted Vehicle Purchase a. Request to purchase - vehicle replacement fund 2. System Development Charge Report a. Request to adopt the new System Development Charge Report from HDR and increase tap fee IT Department No action items REPORTS: Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports Water 1. Water Financial Reports !I No reports Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 02/18/2008 MON 15:54 FAX 9705862816 EP Administration @001 *************************** *** FAX MULTI TX REPORT *** *************************** JOB NO. 0052 PGS. 1 TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869532 5861691 6353677 5771590 ERROR 5869561 - Jz/rvuuled Â·Â·1-c=, t.'fi t>u-)elbayvt(3~YMJ. Ce,In Â£511<210% AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, February 21, 2008 Preparation date: February 13, 2008 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT Light and Power Department 1. Rebar Tree LED upgrade a. Request to upgrade from incandescent to LED 2. Budgeted Primary Wire trailer a. Request to purchase trailer Water Department 1. Budgeted Vehicle Purchase a. Request to purchase - vehide replacement fund 2. System Development Charge Report a. Request to adopt the new System Development Charge Report from HDR and increase tap fee IT Department No action items REPORTS: Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports Water 1. Water Financial Reports M No reports 02/18/2008 MON 15:54 iR3045 @001 ***************** *** TX REPORT *** ***************** JOB NO. 0052 ST. TIME 02/18 15:47 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869532 5861691 6353677 5771590 ERROR 5869561 AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, February 21, 2008 Preparation date: February 13,2008 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT Light and Power Department 1. Rebar Tree LED upgrade a. Request to upgrade from incandescent to LED 2. Budgeted Primary Wire trailer a. Request to purchase trailer Water Department 1. Budgeted Vehicle Purchase a. Request to purchase - vehide replacement fund 2. System Development Charge Report a. Request to adopt the new System Development Charge Report from HDR and increase tap fee IT Department No action items REPORTS: Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports Water 1. Water Financial Reports !I No reports TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments ESTES PARK INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM COLORADO DATE: February 13, 2008 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Mike Mangelsen SUBJECT: Rebar Tree LED upgrade Background: The Town owns and operates (120) rebar Christmas trees and (2) season's greetings Christmas displays. These displays presently utilize incandescent bulbs which consume large amounts of energy. These incandescent bulbs have on the average a 3,000 hour burn time and cost $.25/ea. Through technology, another bulb is now available on the market that consumes much lower amounts of energy. This bulb, the LED, has an 80,000 hour burn time but costs $1.25/ea. During last year's Christmas season, (2) rebar trees were equipped with these LED energy saving bulbs on a trial basis. (See following detail of costs and energy savings) Cost Comparison : (Based on 5,440 bull)s) INCANDESCENT LED BULBS BULBS Cost of Bulbs $1,360.00 $6,800.00 Operating Expense $1,954.00 $555.00 Energy Demand 38 kW 10.8 kW Energy Consumption 34,200 kWh 9,720 kWh Burn Time 3,000 hrs 80,000 hrs Budget: Account # 502-6501-560-2615 Budget: $15,000 Page# 310 Action: With environmental concerns and global warming issues being paramount in today's society, we feel it is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whenever possible. Therefore, staff requests approval to purchase enough LED bulbs to install in the rebar trees and the season's greetings displays. MM LP1. E-11 TOWN of ESTES PARK Â® ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14, 2008 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Dave Mahany SUBJECT: Budgeted Primary Wire Trailer - Request to Purchase (Acct # 502-6501-560-26-43 / p. 312) Background: The Light & Power Department budget includes $15,000 for a new primary wire trailer. The trailer would be used for transporting primary power wire to the job site; the trailer has a turret to better align the wire reel when un-spooling wire in tight areas. CosUBudqet: Cost: Sauber Manufacting Companv - Virgil, IL. 2008 Sauber Model #1519 Turret Wire Trailer $14,671 Freight $ 1,250 Bid Price $ 15,921 Sherman & Reillv Inc. - Chattanooga, TN. 2008 Sherman & Reilly Model TRT-172-6K-T Turret Wire Trailer / f.o.b. factory Bid Price $18,500 Henry & Wright Corporation, - Cleveland OH. 2008 Henry & Wright Model # Single Turret Wire Trailer .................NO RESPONSE Budget: $15,000 (Acct # 502-6501-560-26-43 / p. 312) Cost: $15,921 Action: Staff recommends: Purchasing the Primary Turret Wire Trailer from Sauber Manufacturing Company, Virgil IL. for the cost of $15,921 LP2. TOWN of ESTES PARK Â® ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14, 2008 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Dave Mahany / Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Budgeted Water Department Truck Purchase (9032B) (Acct # 635-7000-435-34-42 / p-390) Background: The 2008 Vehicle Replacement Fund budget includes $42,000 for the purchase of a new 1-ton truck w/utility body for use in the Water Department Cost/Budget: Cost: â€¢ Weld Countv Garage - Greeley CO. 2008 GMC K-3500 4x4 w/utility body $39,789 â€¢ Spradlev Barr Ford - Ft. Collins, CO. 2008 Ford F-350 4x4 w/utility body.. ............................................... $40,078 â€¢ Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, CO. 2008 Ford F-350 4x4 w/utility body.. ................. $42,225 â€¢ Transwest GMC - Henderson, CO. ......... NO RESPONSE Budget: $42,000 (635-7000-435-34-42 / p-390 / Vehicle Replacement Fund) Cost: $39,789 Action: Staff recommends: Purchasing a new 2008 GMC K3500 4x4 w/utility body from Weld County Garage, Greeley CO. for a cost of $39,789 for the Water Department. Wl. - TOWN of ESTES PARK Â® Utilities Department ESTES PARK COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM IATE: February 13,2008 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: System Development Charge Report BACKGROUND: Executive Summary from the HDR Water System Development Charges and Water Rights Fees 12/2007 HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Water Department in February of 2007 to prepare the water utility system development charges and water rights fees. System development charges and water rights fees bring equity between existing and new customers to the system. The obiective of this study was to calculate cost-based fees for new customers connecting to Estes Park's water system. By establishing cost-based system development charges, Estes Park will assure that "growth pays for growth", and existing utility customers will, for the most part, be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. Estes Park currently has water system development charges, called water tap fees or connection charges, which have not been updated since 1995. The water rights fees were last updated in 2003. General industry practice recommends adiusting these fees annually for changes in the costs of construction and to update the fees every three to five years, or whenever comprehensive planning documents for the systems are updated. Estes Park recently completed a financial plan for the utility and the Evaluation of the Water Treatment Facilities. The evaluation plan proiects demand for utility services over a twenty year period and provides the basis for future treatment proiects needed to serve growth and to meet regulatory requirements. With the recent increases in construction costs and the completion of the financial plan and Treatment Facilities Evaluation, Estes Park has undertaken this study to bring parity between existing and new customers. The fees are calculated in conformance with regulatory requirements and are based on Estes Park's planning and esign criteria. A component-by-component approach is taken in developing the fees because each component can have ifferent planning and design criteria. The calculations also take into account the financing mechanisms of capital improvements. Fees must be implemented according to the capacity requirement (i.e. the impact) each new connection has on the system. This way, the charge is related to the impact the customer has on the system and the benefit the customer derives from the system. The tap fee, as the SDC is currently called, was last updated in 1995. Since that time many improvements have been added to the water system. Additionally, this updated calculation includes $9.9 million in proiects for improvements related to growth that were not included in the last fee update. These proiects include the following growth related components: ' $2.9 million in source and treatment related improvements (of the $11.6 million total) ' $5.6 million for 2.845 million gallons of storage (calculated on a cost per gallon basis) I $ 1.2 million in distribution proiects I $0.2 million in general facilities and equipment The fee methodology uses a replacement cost approach, meaning that as time increases, so does the cost to replace the existing system. The fee methodology has both a "buy-in" and a "future" component to the calculation. With the increases in the value of the existing system, and those improvements needed to meet demand in the future, the fee is increasing accordingly. These costs need to be included in the fee to ensure that existing customers are sheltered from the impacts of growth. Please see two attachments detailing the current and proposed lap fees: 1. Current and Proposed Water Tap Fees 2. Estes Park Fixture Count Listing BUDGET: N/A ECOMMENDATION: taff recommends adopting the proposed System Development Fees shown in the above table produced from the HDR Report W2. TOWN OF ESTES PARK CURRENT AND PROPOSED WATER TAP FEES February 2008 RESIDENTIAL Existing Proposed 1 ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) Water SDCs (PLANT FEE) $1,840 $4,940 Water Rights Fees $5,400 $5,450 Total $7,240 $10,390 MULTI-FAMILY Exisling Proposed .70 ERU Water SDCs (PLANT FEE) $1,288 $3,460 Water Rights Fees $3,780 $3,815 Total $5,068 $7,275 ACCOMMODATIONS Exisling Proposed .60 ERU Water SDCs (PLANT FEE) $1104 $2,965 Water Rights Fees $3240 $3,270 Total $4,344 $6,235 COMMERCIAL (NON- Exisling Proposed ACCOMMODATIONS) 5% per fixture unit Water SDCs (PLANT FEE) $92 $247 Water Rights Fees $270 $275 Total $362 $522 Minimum (>15 Fixture Units) $2300 $3270 W2a. ESTES PARK FIXTURE COUNT LISTING Type of facility Number of Fixture Units Bathtub & Shower Combo = 8 Bathtub only = 4 Shower only = 4 Drinking fountain (cooler) = 1 Drinking fountain (public) = 2 Kitchen sink = 3 Lavatory = 2 Laundry trays = 3 Service sink = 3 Urinal, pedestal flush valve = 35 Urinal, wall or stall = 12 Trough (2' unit) = 2 Water closet, flush valve = 35 Water closet, tank type = 3 Dishwasher = 4 Washing machine = 5 Hose bib = 6 W2b. 2 14222&*2 211.Â© 0 Â©e-1*W:Zoo Â©06 4 B 5 0 0 0 41 S GO 28 3% lagge . f e.3 99 m X *Rim .rb rn - 8%% -30825: 000000 000 odoodo 5%% :*&Â§Â§Â§9 000 dodd mfo I.. .j 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 9g R *0*: 0 0 5 K - h st De 0 0 0 16 Ch -} el KE GO 2 6%32 M M 3 2 & 1 g 9 2 8 2 0 1. AA 04 W 00 Beginning unrestricted (usable) fund balance 10,904,931 10,904,931 $9,986,900 $10,904,931 109% MONTH-TO-DATE MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE BUDGET vs. YTD Utility Sales 1,039,084 1,116,374 77,290 1,039,084 1,116,374 77 2 10,800,627 1,116,374 10% 2008 2007 2008 ~ ot;2 Â°f Bud~ Other 69,183 21,875 69,183 47 69,183 12% Total Revenues 1,185,557 1 1,060,959 1,185,557 124 11 59,221 1,185,557 10% Source of Supply 523,582 (39,023) 484,559 523,582 (39,023) 0.0 523,582 1 Distribution and Maintena 52,850 55,885 (3.035) 52,850 55,885 (3,035) 0.0 55,885 I Z68't,6 06Â£'806 LOO'O LOO'O (t,LE' 1) 268'46 815'Â£6 (t,LE, 1) 268't6 815'â‚¬6 ino goisuell Suquiedo mer Billing and Accou ts 31,525 31,747 (222) 31,525 31,747 31,747 265'618 6*9'90â‚¬'8 I 090 0 0900 (170Â£49â‚¬) Z65'6I8 888'ESL (fOL'5Â£) Z69'618 888'EBL sain,!puodx3 le}ol 596'59Â£ (8ZE'L*6'9) f68'88 596'59Â£ ILO'LLE *68'88 596'59â‚¬ ILO'LLE (le;!de, atopq saimipuadxo 663't 66Z't 66Cf 66Ct 663'f Sjoillos 10410 01 p@1800[|BROA!0001 Listo *93'OLE (8/Â£'L/6'9) E6I'Â£6 *9Z'OLE ILO'LLE Â£6I'Â£6 *9Z'OLE I LO'LLE qtuoul 101 uoilisod tiseo u! @Suell) 10&M Expenses 690,370 (34,330) 690,370 724,700 (34,330) 9,557,090 724,700 961'5LCI 1$ ILÂ¢6â‚¬0'Â£$ 561'5LZ'II$ 561'SLE'II$ aounteq puni (@Iqusn) poloulsolun Suipu3 690' 180'L 000*0 0000 0 000'09Â£ 000*0 000*0 0 VAR VAR Per kWh Per kWh inistration and General 121,43 7,950 121,436 HT AND POWER FUND CASH FLOW COMPARISON Operation and Maintenance Expense 20 sOnII@AN JO Kou@!0!Jop/ss@Oxg) Injolqns vs. 2007 TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER TRENDS Type Summary Date Januarr08 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of Avg Avg Avg # ofaccts KWH Growth Revenues Total Rev % Cum Rev/KWH KWH/Cust Rev/Cust r Residential 7.541 4,0 I 6.828 0.8% $378,703 44% 44% 9).0946 533 $50.21 Gen Serv Small 1.637 2.132.509 0.1% $195.659 22% 66% $0.09 1 8 1,302 $119.48 Gen Serv Large 94 2,808,824 -0.2% $ 172,751 20% 86% SO.0617 29,820 $1,834.44 r Residential Demand 374 690,944 0.7% $64.869 7% 93% $().0975 1.847 $173.56 r Res Energy / Time of Day 247 406.899 1.6% $26.576 3% 96% $0.0675 1,642 $107.29 Municipal 62 245,537 -0.2% $ 19.7-38 2% 99% $0.0804 3,966 $318.84 RMNP- Small Admin 21 102,770 1.2% $3.172 0% 99% $0.0428 4.838 $148.47 RMNP - Large Admin 6 60,382 0.7% $2.734 0% 99% $0.0459 10.064 $455.68 r Res Basic Energy 20 26.856 6.4% $2.377 0% 100% $0.0897 1.329 $117.57 Wind Power Ill 0 0.0% $1,257 0% 99% N/A N/A N/A GSS -Comml-Energy TOD 13 17.436 1.0% $1.237 0% 100% $0.0719 1,341 $95.15 GSL - Comml - Time of Day 1 11,200 -0.5% $824 0% 100% $0.0759 0 $0.00 Outdoor Area Lighting 16 0 0.0% $244 0% 100% N/A WA N/A r Res Time of Day 0 0 #DIV/0! $0 0% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! RMNP - Administrative 2 736 0.0% $41 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A 10.146 avg $870,182 100% annual revenues at this pace: $10,442,181 budget: $10,686,947 projected over/under: | ($244,766)| /// -2.- '' 12 Â·~ Â·t-3,~ Â·Â· ' 1~2Â£& V. & O Budget len}ov I 8001 zooz 9001 L&P Budget vs (Projected) Actuals $10,800,000 - $10,600,000 $10,400,000 $10,200,000 000'000'OLS 000'008'6$ 000'009'6$ 000'00*'6$ 000'001'6$ , fi\\ Cl <C -2006 ZOOZ- %00.0 8002 oea AoN 100 des nv Je qe:1 uer Actual L&P revenues over/beyond Budget 3.00% - 2.00% 1.00% 1 1 5600 K- %00 Z- - O/OOOP 13 db 4 10,600,000 - 0 Budgeted 10,400,000 - â€¢ R~~venues at Current L&P Revenue Progress 4, /606 + 11,000,000 - 10,900,000 10,800,000 10,700,000 10,500,000 - - 000'00â‚¬90 L - 000'003'0 L - 000'00 L 'O L 000'000'0 L MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND 25500 23500 21500 -0--2006 -,I,-2007 19500 - 2008 17500- - - 15500 13500 - 11500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTHLY ENERGY PURCHASES 14,000 - - 12,000 -Â· 4 - 4- Il -7 ir I :t 4 4 4$51 7% 10,000 -01 k 1,-6. -44 - 0, 0 3% 72 3 0% 7.1 03 / 1 8 0% 8 8 2/ 01 2 0% 04 04 i, i# -17--5---7,-il-i' 4 82006 1 ' /. ,% 53 24 4% #1 44 4% di f f Q 2007 0 8,000 - -04 -/3- 02 - 4~ pj~ *; 0, 0, 41 2% 0% 0 0% . 33 0 4, 4â‚¬ 02 *f My A:* 27 0 0-1 1% h % 4 0 0 2 9% I 0 2008 0 6,000 --3.2 , -;#-4-ji-4 4 8 57 34, j~ A 04 5 %44 45 u/ 01 3% *2 2% 4 4 2 33 53 2 4 9 0 " 0% 1/Ti 24 4 ~IiÂ·b 4% 934 0% 02 / 20 43- 4,000 - 44 0* *4 04 54 *2 44 0/ 4 02 01 05 #I #M #1 4A #A ; /2 03 A 45 4 0 0;$ 04 0* 0* 4% 0 2,000 4.4 1 44 1 09 1 4% 1 4 4 Â¢ 42 , 6 k , 24 1 1 /-9 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 6 SYSTEM KW ~2*UL YTD ENERGY PURCHASES 140,000 7 120,000- 100,000 - - 3.74% YTD 2008 VS 2007 80,000 -IL - .2006 J 02007 60,000 - - -- U - -~- 1 2008 40,000 20,000 â€ži--I- lill]~~~1~ -~- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD POWER COST vs. BUDGET ($1,000) ~ eBUDGET Â¤ACTUAL 6,000 5,000 4,000 - 5 % N m 0% 6% m 3,000 - 0 &4 14 :* m :6* >X + 2,000 -Â·- m :44 1 8- W -R -- E im"Rili#%23 EM *3 $1 &* 2 83 23 1,000 ENE~1 5 1 i: 7 . 9 0 2 $ 4- ...1 4.4 1% ./1 Fi 8 E- S 414/8.35i tok Â·.1.1 ME- 24 :X Â»X Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 7 YTD MWH Purchased Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â· Â· Â·~ Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· g vil:. ' .....<Â·FMMMMMA././.Mr I 13?â‚¬Â§@g@%?%68*220%&333& ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH ($1,000) 1,200 - 1,100 --- - 1,000 11 07 -- - - 1 4 4 ::/ 900 :f - -- r 4 4 311 i 7 r O 2006 800 -- 21 -li- i -S E ;- H - t ~ - C. - i 9 6 1 k . ... 1 ~f--3-4 t. 02007 1 L 77 , 2 h 3 c .4 . .4 .. 1% <9 , 4 IS I I ./' IH 700 --Ef -:0 -}f-- Se----:tt-.1--4..1-:v 2%-~ 4 02008 1 % 4 I I 2. 1.S ..j 2 il :2 .1 47 UN Z k. I I 'i .4 /1 11 14 4-% 4 .4 it 4% 14 . 11 1 ra 1 .1 C: ' . itÂ·1' 4 '4 4 %11 4 4,3 : , 1 ).1 /1 '21 21,1 * bl IN , 1 24 1 . , 2 'i h : t... i, : I . .t 400 -_ ti -1--ft , Z - ; 25 - 7 t.1 -4 ---9-Ii-:5- - $14 .,4 2.1 4 I: M / 1 , 84 ... . 4 1 <Â· 6.4 <I ;3 Of tn .4 Â·tf .4 1 â€¢/2 ! 2 1 ' I. 1 1 ..6- 1 4 43 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR TO DATE ELECTRIC SALES ($1,000) 12,000 10,800,627 10,000 - 7.44% 2008 YTD VS 2007 8,000 ~ 2006 - 2007 6,000 02008 - ' 1 4 -, 5 1 '' - Budget T : Â·11 9 , 0 V g 9 r# 1 4 2 4,000 - -7 - }3 - .#- d-. 4, - 0: --- ' + - - - 4/ i .,F '-7 1 3 -1 R 1 , 11 :I ,.. !4 -1. 11, * bl If :: 2,000 F' 11 '' ' k D k ou re '4 Â·* . '11 :. 5. I li 11 0 . 1Â·14,11 .i--, ./ r y.. e 4 , Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 8 'RAW>,>EkE,>kkE*&*21Â«,2%/4 4,*1 ~ I I . 0 2 22:zte Â£Â£/95/ge Â£ C @E BE 00 ./ Q.iÂ·:r-r, Nor-Â·MO 001 04 00 M Eg@Rt 2 0 5 2 52.90Â°k 2222 16 W CO 8 *Â§8?29 rico O 0 0 - - - 2< 4 2 81 8 2 26532 2222 4 2. R *Am 02 EgAR 1- C. M M 00 . 38 Â§4% ggggg8g 0.4-10.10%0 M 00000 0660000 r- Â¤8g68 g 0000 0000000 00 Oot-- r1 ./ /0 Wt ; M 8% R'gsa 82$2 DMOr-MO 0 0 Yxms -:2900.f 222*Â° 0 0 0 cirt - a Ri*Eg 00 Er-co 006 0 5#533 2 Z -- RE =82@R welot--C\O 0 0 S 0\ oci n n CH .8222 212 mE -m.9.00% M 1% 8222%0% 0 003 0 0 7 9 1 0: 41 $*>RES E 2 r< EZ Et=.S E.B. 1 0% .55 9 .0 6 0 4.25 23 .6,Qu<o H 0 Z e.zu & 5 to O DATE MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VAR Per Gal Per Budget YTD YTD % 2007 2008 of Budget 7,793 160,560 1,456 Â¥Â£6'Et! 91*'ELI'Â£ 145'L *E6'Et I 9Lt''I EI EfS'L f[6'EZI I @suad>q @ouuu@juiepy puu uottelado tel BLE'L65'*S 800'184'8 BLE'L65'DS BLE'L66'4$ 03uufq pury (Mqusn) poiouisanm Burpust 815' Et EIE'I 00'6 900'0 900*0 80I'L 819'0Â£ I 939'LEI 801'L SIG'OE I somlipuodxa Imol 028'56 (EBO'[Â£9) (68CZEI) 028'96 609'SEE (68L'tEl) OES'56 609'822 q,110111 101 UO!1!sod tisej u! 03ueqj 0000 0000 0 00!AJOS lq@Cl 000*0 0000 0 000*0 000-0 (fâ‚¬f) *85'9 051'9 80 9'9 ino si@jur, Sulle.ado 48,070 (43,267) 48,070 (43,~D o.* N Water rights Tap Fees 141,835 (127.255) 141,835 (127,255) 0.006 Total Revenues 366,235 7.965) 366,235 2 (1=) 2 ginning unrestricted (usable) fund balance 4,501,558 4,501,558 ' $3,155,091 14 (Â£58*0*1) aL'LB 609'82 (Â£58'0,1 ) EFL'LB 609'SEE (Imdeo Nopq sam}!puadxo (890'8) 890'8 (890'8) 890'8 SoamOS 12410 01 pO,lt,OIBROA!2001 4SED tbution and Maintenance (4,03 ) Man~ Dewlopment Tap Fees 164,870 16 164,870 165,318 11,460 11,460 JOAO Sant]*01 Jo KOUMOUOP/ss@:XED lutotqns COMPARISON peration and Maintenance Expense er Billing and Accounts leÂ·IOUOD pue uoilens! WATER FUND Ipt,deo TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPARTMENT TRENDS Type Summary Date January-08 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 2,696 12,378,313 -0.4% $79.752 37% 37% $0.007 4,594 $29.59 Urban Commercial 792 14,364,210 -0.2% $57.539 27% 64% So.004 18,072 $72.46 Rural Residential 1,308 4,485,897 -0.3% $55,416 26% 90% $0.013 3,430 $42.38 Rural Commercial 92 1,624.709 0.8% $10.427 5% 95% $0.007 17.640 $113.33 Bulk Water 1,520,396 -5.7% $ 1 1.508 5% 100% avg: $214,641 100% annual revenues at this pace: $2,575,696 budget: $2,645,554 projected over/under: | ($69,858)| 'i- 7 ... Er 'A .19 -122'' O Budget ien}ov l 000'0097$ 9001 zooz 9001 Water Budget vs (Projected) Actual $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 000'000' Mt 000'009$ 0$ \1 - - 2006 ZOOZ - %009 8002 Oea AON PO des Bnv Inf unr Ae'Al Jdv Jel/\1 qe=1 uer Actual Water revenues over/beyond Budget 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 8.00% %001 %002 %00.0 %00'Z- 1 1 1 10.00% %00 f- , - do 6% - 02 Water Revenue Progress $2,600,000 Â« m Budgeted Revenues $2,400,000 - â€¢Re(~nues at Current + $3,000,000 $2,900,000 $2,800,000 $2,700,000 $2,500,000 - - 000'00Â£'ES - 000'001'3$ - 000'00 L '1$ 000'00091$ 4 2/5/2008 Water Sales by Month ($) 350,000 300,000 250,000 7 7 * I 1 1 /1 --7 Â¤2006 200,000 - , 1/ 1, 1 1 150,000 -&7 4 - D- 4 3 5 ~ ~ --~ -EE 02007 Â¤2008 11 ,/ .,, ,1 't //, 1 100,000 / , . , 4 / 4 /1 :8 1 t /1 / 4 5 , 50,000 ~ ~ 't 5 53% ,1 t , 1 1/ 1 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Water Sales Year-To-Date ($1,000) 3,500 3.276.554 3,000 - - M 2006 2,500 ---- CZE]2007 ~2008 2,000 - -- - - Budget - 7- 1,500 3.72% 2008 YTD VS 2007 7 1,000 - 0 4 500 -77 -mm o fl Jan Feb Mar Apr May J un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RW5 \\\\\Led Â©0063>00Â«311~Â«i", INNM,Â»Â»0...01...#Ft...... h>%>,>':.%"...:'n.""..........'.:4.k.':B:<4< 1% 5 ......:.4.\3%. LF: R ...4 + { .,2.0.41*Â©Â¢*pâ‚¬.7. ..~,r:'Â·~'/