The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2007-01-29/<623* 4 /-717=CT'.efi,Mt. +1:'frh/LI)/r'kl' 1 ~ per 4?s PA* TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION Monday, January 29,2007 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Museum Conference Room 200 Fourth Street AGENDA 1. Utilities Financial Plan 2. Capital Improvement Plan 3. Marketing District 4. Fire District . LIGHT AND POWER TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29,2007 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. 3/17/2006 Marv'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 W ' 35 00 .EN w :m:s m. =5 : ca Z ..3. RE 8% 0 0:0 4 Ej~E F W 8 I 380. Z 0 /25.W - w mE:B h 0 M inam 111 lilli G 1 1 M 0 IZI mE Em 0- 99'Â£22 .6Â£,0 .IS S 0 1, -/ rj\jÂ«9 -i . U : Ca ./ ,- X O / 0 = 0 2 9 =%1 2 0. & ab . .CD u -* - 9 0/ 0 08 ZE Zi 1 -19 â‚¬ d / zz -1.-1 w --1.-34 E g: C [OF r. w s : 04 g 3% E St * 3, f Ul,1 I z 8: = 8% CM - .0 891=1=1 Â¤EE 1- 1 *1 1 EEE = _ mt c. 2. 5 ZE 5 3 %31: 140:,731 al - / m N . 1,) n .1 6 1,2 4 V .1-7 - E 1 0 1 1 = 0 w~ _ 1.0 23qWnrl 1.3r[Md W. W. :=-=-==r, & 0-1 0 rem X = 1 ap / 0 0* L/0 = r"-18.1 ' 44 1 * 7 . p 4-1ULP SWITCHGEAR ~ 0 14 X 65 1 1 li i il i &.0 ' 0 c 14 Jil Â·>, L!18,1. 09 3 1 em i: f' /# :\ .:11.:: 3, -l lin BARA L,...1, 1" O . 0 ' I. O 0 C M WS L- -./. El Z \ 0 . 5 .f g S CD CD ---- 1. 11 ---- C 1 -Ill m /// ,00'502 3.OUUS N a b e 4.g 4- & li 0 l e 9.4,04 '160 gs NS e 4 . .:M.W . . 0- â‚¬. ID. 62 :E em ML-101 MARK LAYOUT i | POWER PLANT 11IW0HinV 33AIN 311Vld G2G 'SNI 1100 '1.3 TO ESTES POWER PLANT IWEST TO ESTES STR. T- OrW AE 03>133HJ 1ra AE NAVB[ | Orw AS G3N9 IS]G ]r *002-EB+LOI Â·ON 96/E/6 3176 orw 16 ff,AOM,IMV GIE &103 08*ZOL NOUVONA03 M31A NVId 0350dOkld AleM]SSV 3Antj-V - ~ Ah{Â¥0NnOEI 3dOhld Il- 168nS ANGLL 3>IVI SAUVIN .INOddnS Sne - LO L--IIN 'ON 9NIMVNG ~ .0-.02 = .1 31vos ddV >13 AE 3ASSI -30 NV SNOIS 3196 ' 0LkeeL 1,nOAÂ¥1 03SOdONd - 0N3931 03ddllS 3-18Â¥0 ADIN S62 - ----Â· 801;3hihiÂ¥ 39BnS - 9 '3 0002 30IAh13S PRPA -EVIL BOTTOM 708% //=-1 - 44 00 7 96/02/21 WOOD RETAINING WALL - 41 12.47/115Â¥V ~C0 ,(0 80 rgel +9Â£ .86,0Â£.GE N PAVED ROAD TO ESTES PARK 112.47/11317 1264 1263 S310d 83SIN 2â€¢ 22' 30Â· E 289.00' S213G333 Â«f EDGE OF PAVEMENT SHIELD WIRE STRUCTURE~ 1' WOOD RETAINING WALL---~ 5 2424'45" E 124.1 ' 18' CMP S 26'21' - . 58. E 71.51 02, 3623b TPOB CN lo 00 -2 C. M 1 Â¤ 1 g 0 1 - 0 * A m IN & 1 -2 2 6,5 1 -3 E'~ 9 2 O & 4 O LL] 5E NE, O Â·2 E &4 4 3 k~ 2 1 3 la 8 6 x E alg & a W w m 1 6 2 5 %'E â‚¬ 11 1 2 El' i 2 g g (73 E- 4 * U|U March October November 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 10 17 24 15 22 29 19 26 obile Substation installation Moble Substatiâ€žn gtallation Removal Marvs Lake Substation Addition terials Order 12/15/2007 28 weeks from PO for delivery 12/15/2007 30 weeks from PO for delivery April 3/15/2007 7/20/2007 48 weeks from PO for delivery Construction Schedule Foundatio Switchge Delivery Control and SCADA cable Trip Checks In-Service Relay Testing Power and feeder cable Steel an Li . Light and Power Utility Financial Plan 1 1 1 p. 1 1 1 I \%...F~~ ..1 - Town of Estes Park January 29,2007 HDR Engineering, Inc. 1 ~ Development of the Light and Power 9 Utility Revenue Requirements 1Â®Ilmi= rE:iIi!::iiii,*~F/'~""::'=Zi ~ â€¢ Same methodology as water ~ â€¢ O&M: Average $9 million/year -.\ 2 â€¢ Taxes Transfer Payments: 1*Wvvwfl Average of $1.1 million/year ~ â€¢ Debt Service Payments: . New bond issue: 2008 for substation ~ ~ . Total = $785,000 per year 2008 to 2013 ~ 9 â€¢ Capital (CIP) From Rates: --E Avv 1/ , Annual depreciation expense: /// r //I~-n m :01. $520,000 in 2005 I'll V \1/\ 1 4 3- ....i tÂ«-719 i u, , 1/lill" Begin 2006 at $921,000; increase to $1.3 million by 2013 2 HDR Engineering, Inc. f~ Light and Power Utility Capital Plan ~ (Revenue Requirements continued) ~ â€¢ Capital Project Highlights: $15.6 million total ~ Mary's Lake Substation upgrade in 2008 p 40% increase for transformers due to rise - in copper - Distribution system improvements ,/ 1. ,(1, 4~---1, : -4,6,2/:NM .....M.I.,RS?...i-,2- 1. . 3 HDR Engineering, Inc. ~ Light and Power Utility Capital *m Plan (000s) -DescopEn2007-36682009-2610-20112012-26131 Building Remodeling $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 Station Equipment 5 4.000 55555 Office Equipment 23 15 15 15 15 15 15 Data Processing Equipment 96 45 40 40 40 40 40 Transformers 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 Communication Equipment 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 Vehicles 276 42 218 51 25 44 42 Street Lights 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Poles, Towers and Fixtures 20 15 20 20 20 20 20 Overhead Lines 100 100 100 750 700 230 600 Underground Conductors 420 2,484 425 144 144 798 408 Balance to Reserves 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Equipment $1.209 $7,025 $1.092 $1,295 $1.219 $1.421 $1,400 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 Imp Funded Through Rates $1,000 $1,025 $1,080 $1,135 $1,190 $1,245 $1,300 HDR Engineering, Inc. 4 f~ Summary of the Light and Power Utility ~ Revenue Requirements (000s) -~M-1-1 '14. r." 1 ./* gilil 4,\N~>0 ..43 Budget Projected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Revenue $10,740 $10,948 $11,170 $11,395 $11,624 $11.858 $12,097 Expenses Total Operations and Maintenance $8,162 $8.476 $8,679 $8,889 $9,234 $9,594 $9,968 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 1.245 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 Bal/(Def) as a % of Present Rates -1.5% 4.6% 5.1% 5.6% 7.2% 10.2% 11.9% Proposed Rate Adlustment 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.056 HDR Engineering, Inc. 5 ~9 Overview of the Proposed Reserves - 4 Light and Power Utility (000' s) 4 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 $O $O $0 $0 $0 $O $O Minimum 2% Fixed Assets, 2005 $220 $220 3* 6 HDR Engineering, Inc. 1 Summary of the Alternative Rate 1 Adjustments 11/111111111111111111111111111111 =Â¥*ElrÂ·F'flllill~1111111111111111111111111111111111111!I~11111 """""""""'mÂ®""""m~~ .Im.1#'.b /"lilli!111111111111111!~1141~114 Budget Projected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Revenue $10,740 $10,948 $11,170 $11,395 $11,624 $11,858 $12,096 Expenses Total Operations & Maintenance $8.162 $8,476 $8,679 $8,889 $9,234 $9,594 $9,968 Total Taxes and Transfers 1,122 1.145 1,167 1,190 1,213 1,236 1.260 Capital Projects Funded from Rates 1,000 1,025 1,080 1,135 1,190 1,245 1.300 Debt Service 301 782 782 785 783 785 787 Change in Working Capital (reserves) 0 0 0 0 0 300 400 Total Revenue Requirements $10,585 $11,428 $11,708 $11,999 $12,420 $13,160 $13,715 Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds $155 ($480) ($538) ($604) ($796) ($1,302) ($1,619) Balance as a % of Revenues -1.5% 4.6% 5.1% 5.6% 7.2% 11.6% 14.1% Proposed Rate Adiustment 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Operating Reserve Ending Balance $2,802 $2,802 $2,481 $2,330 $2,170 $2,005 $1,831 Minimum Target 90 Days O&M Exp./Trns. $2.012 $1,941 $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,250 Capital Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 2% of Assets $220 $220 Minimum of 6-year average CIP $1,430 $1,430 ~ Conclusions from the Light and Power 4% Utility Revenue Requirements 1-+1-76-â‚¬~ .,4, Utility must adequately fund capital (CIP) from J rates for renewals & replacements. Helps to ~ maintain debt service coverage ratio. 1 e New bond issue and debt in 2008 requires rate adjustment. ~ e Future year cost of living adjustments needed for 1 cost increases and maintaining minimum reserve - balance. a Monitor reserve levels and develop capital reserve, as possible. HDR Engineering, Inc. 8 . Summary Conclusions of the Revenue Requirement Analyses '1' 1 i,14,E.0//11.'iliii~i~ !~ i -- -Â· .5~1 2~.~~fEE~p 11 * Similar to water ~ R Light and power rates are projected to be 1 deficient 2008 to 2013 due to capital ti~ expenditures and inflationary increases in 0&M 7~ â€¢ Capital expenditures are driven by replacement, 04 regulatory and growth needs 1 â€¢ Revenue bonds require debt service coverage 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% HDR Engineering, Inc. 9 1 Light & Power Current & Proposed / Monthly Residential Rates J * At 2.0% adjustment 2008 - 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Residential 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 Demand charge per kW (9/1-4/30) $8.92 $9.17 $9.35 $9.54 $9.73 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) $0.08447 $0.08684 $0.08857 $0.09034 $0.09215 10 HDR Engineering, Inc. 1 Light & Power Current & Proposed ] Monthly Commercial Rates /6 ~f~ m At 2.0% adjustment 2008 - 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Small Commercial Customer charge per month $7.80 $8.02 $8.18 $8.34 $8.51 Energy charge per kWh $0.08459 $0.08696 $0.08870 $0.09047 $0.09228 *fr Large Commercial 7 Customer charge per month $10.76 $11.06 $11.28 $11.51 $11.74 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. 11 ~ Current & Proposed Light & Power 93 Average Monthly Residential Bills 9 Light and Power Utility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 * Proposed Rate Adjustment 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% "f Average Residential Customer $47.31 Bill (520 kWh/month) Rates After Adjustment $48.26 $49.22 $50.21 $51.21 $52.24 $53.28 eff Annual Adjustment $0.95 $0.97 $0,98 $1.00 $1.02 $1.04 Cumulative Impact $0.95 $1.92 $2.90 $3.90 $4.92 $5.96 Alternative Rate Adjustment 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Average Residential Customer $47.31 Bill (520 kWh/month) Rates After Adjustment $48.49 $49.71 $50.95 $52.22 $53.53 $54.87 Annual Adjustment $1.18 $1.22 $1.24 $1.27 $1.31 $1.34 Cumulative Impact $1.18 $2.40 $3.64 $4.91 $6.22 $7.56 4 Concluding Comments and Policy Direction From the Board 'U JU~ 4. Il 'H'-it'11~1 * Revenue requirements are designed to meet L&P's financial requirements 4 Cost-based 0Â£ Maintain financial stability hi mÂ®lili Direction regarding timing and level of rate adjustments â€¢ Committee looking at 2.5% * Provide better fund balance 13 HDR Engineering, Inc. * Proposed Combined Average Monthly I Residential Bills (2.5% L&P) ~|Â«7,, ,Â£-:=~Â·..~:1!:i~ilili~i~~!~imlli~~,i!!MiN!!il~6Nt~6,i, Water Utility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Rates After Adjustment $31.20 $32.95 $34.79 $36.74 $38,80 $40.97 $43.27 (5,000 gallons) Annual Adjustment $1.75 $1.84 $1.95 $2.06 $2.17 $2.30 Light and Power Utility Rates After Adjustment $47.31 $48.49 $49.71 $50.95 $52.22 $53.53 $54.87 (520 KWH) Annual Adjustment $1.18 $1.22 $1.24 $1.27 $1.31 $1.34 - Combined Combined Utility Bill $78.51 $81.44 $84.50 $87.69 $91.02 $94.50 $98.14 Combined Monthly Impact $2.93 $3.06 $3.19 $3.33 $3.48 $3.64 HDR Engineering, Inc. 14 . 'al"-Per.'.. <1 APPENDIX LIGHT & DWER SUMMARY FINANCIAL PLAN . m . 00.028 815-410 9-*l* Ra~ a~665**633 93 ,-2 2Â°a-,1.5 - .--100 ..10 : ..ct laz OP :cy. M h - . C'~ - BES - PS! d :: . 00.1<0 a) <0 1 â‚¬0 16 Â·41 - - . r C> 4 69 - * - 'A - 0 2 8 - 61. 2 221 m gel 8 ..to M.'â€¢0 0 - . B<%320'-0 M: 9,8 9!0882!g ..00.. R gain Raig M.2 1 * St 2 11-52.1-0.-Op: 02 22 "1 quo.OF. E@11 20* |57 19 16 i E a lig O 0 00 N co egg 04 Un N . C} aG 33 0 - re 4 -- U. 68 60 64 2 2 ~ ~ ~ R[ :t 1 :0 ~ cio co 0...100 981 Â§ 8 1 6 1- 2 6 55 22 1- .0089!12 200028 tr,2 1 S * .- Cl CO - te + O N Cy El Ve m 81 5515 . 2- 2: d 56 loole .1 8 8 9 M 1~ 1-EFS 39 33 E.m sÂ°Â°mEe 200028 81 0 1/ iRa 2%10 -1 . m .1 4 CO ; S 1. 2 38 E 00 1. cy - 0- : u) ...:3232 : 2 4 .. N h - C} -000-0, 000000 ..el-1. 1* 0, .-0 - 0000-10 .ON N. 2- V M + te 0 & 2 Z "' " 25 2 4 -:N â€ž : I@i ~ GE c. 4 N' N 10-- CO e 64 64 â‚¬ E 2: i%â€ž : ..!3 293*~~ 249 Â§*Sm@Â£%:**Â£2: :: 9: :Â°Â°81% SÂ°Â°Â°28 pp i. 2/ 2 RER 9/2 : 921* RE~ P ; ~ ~ i i 1 4 N i # i N 58' O 0 . P â€ž 00 04 N. 2 - 6. - - te to Lflr CO - un NO -O co M. M. .p 0, & 4 HIM 89 m ER i i K g 2:% 03: 812Â§*4%22:421 :8 00 0Â°08@0 2Â°Â°028 4 6 r-O 2 9 44 *4 22 B 0-0 :21= Â¢90. 5.2 1 2 - - het h -0 . - . cy-N' 0 0 - 0 - 64 6./. 64 64 . . 10 = . E 3 21 CL 0 5 . 0. g 1 Ze/ 1 1 3: i 1 a 2 3 1 : 1 2 8 : : 0 2 2 th-Ul .1 - 0 N h . â‚¬A N 0 64 64 8 e Z I $. /-141 E * Bi i E E i â‚¬ i a i kiL i - 31% ; 1 8 1 i : 1 : E:=-0. 0 1 . Â§ 1: i 3 Â§ f KNE 8 2 aa= S ' 22 125 ED-=/01 21-=im= a- ZZ 2.3 6-6 2 6 0.0 E 9 1 Ell fli V &02*3&2 8.EMB~ul 8; -0..... m 2010 2011 201 $10,621,00 $10,833,42 $11,050,088 $11,496,512 $11,394,801 $11, $12,096,806 $4,785,000 $5,1 1,263 $5,424 $5,668,989 $5,924,094 0,088 0'082$ 0'022$ 0~082$ 0'022$ 0'022$ 0'028$ 9008 'slessv Pexkl % 41'9". 80,284 1,734,295 1 789,85 47,522 otal Operations and Maintenance 9,233,93 RequIremen $12,420,613 $1 ,005 Projected $1,014,~4 $1,034,016 $1,054,107 1,189,655 1,212,792 $783,883 ($796,481) 698'4$ LO'081'2$ 1&g'021 LE'26VES eoueleg Capital Improvements Funded Through Ra $1,080,000 $1,135,000 $1,190, 02'BEE' iscellaneous Revenue 549,01 LIght and Power Summary ive/General 197,6 a ons and Maintenance Jout elebl utold es!4OueÂ«sexe.Â£ teuofUPPV :ssel arges for Service ustomer Accounts 8 Oul elel U,013 er,UeAel let.IO!1!PP Revenue aouelea PurT=CZY:.1 giggfigg 8% 2% g Cy N 09 01 Moore co W M â€ž co 0 01 2 gig giggiggi mi g N N CD CU (,5 00 me*ripe . gig iggifigg 2% 2% 0 Necu m 06 co co. c) F co M 01 0 32 32 y giggiggi g N 000 ) 09 N e co e 0,3 cgi m Â·- CO 0 ggg gg gigig g g Ng,- modeell-en Â£ 11% 1%11&/&& 2% :g w :EE :E-EE:-BEE 1,6 N rnmm mmarnamm0 %1 & U 0 inÂ·&% 11 &3 bit-ilifi B 3mirn==3â€¢ '0 540'0 %00 %00 %0-0 ./00.0 %8'2 SeseaJOUI 81821 paAO.,ddv 1!OunO3 2.0% 2.0% 2.056 20% 2008 2009 2010 2011 Budget Projected 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Budget Investment Income Budget Miscellaneous Income Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget ower (Cost Increase + Growth) Budget Budget Budget Budget 20 20 562 JOJ 6uluueld JeAGMoll eke *ell 1 '41AAol6 %Â£ 6uioueiiedxe Xituauno s! UMol. 841 teqi se 180!Pul 293 efied laOpne 9003 [ L] tenance The Town of Estes Park Light and Power Exhibit 2 ESCALAT1ON FACTORS Escalation Factors (11 Rea~e Rev~nue Growth New Debt Service Rate Low Interest Loan Term in Years Rate . The Town of Estes Park Page 1 of 2 Light & Power Exhibit 3 Capital Improvement Plan Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Capital Equipment Building Memodeling Building Remodeling $10,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Station Equipment Base $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 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 Miscellaneous $7,500 $22,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $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 $40,000 $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 Clicl<2Gov online Payment Software 0 0 20,235 0 0 0 0 0 Security Locks 0 17,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE Orep Report Winer-cis/land 0 18,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE Orep Report 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 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Transtormers 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 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 Communication Equipment Wireless Base Unit $7,500 $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 $12,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 Vehicles 96' IH 4900 (Bucket) (L&P) $0 $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 02' Ford Explorer S-Trac (L&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(UP) 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 05' Jeep Liberty(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 F150 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 Forklift (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 # 198-1006 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 $218,000 $51,000 $25,000 $44,000 $42,000 , . The Town of Estes Park Page 2 of 2 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 $20,000 $20,000 $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 $5,000 $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 $50,000 Conductor/System Upgrade Program $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 $74,000 $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 $50,000 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 ~~ ~S UG 000 34,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 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 lake 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 $186,000 $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 $1,218,500 $1,420,867 $1,399,500 Funding Sources Operating Reserves $31,000 $208,850 $0 $12,300 $159,500 $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$12,560 $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 .'. 0% 315 33 i 3 3 - - i Al $ M 00 % 1.- r.- S!Â°04%90 S.gÂ°888 O - r- co 0 E r - O 000 - 51 2 & g N g :*g 9 :RIC 2- 2 O 2 2 d dod :i Egals re:*122 - a UN 10- 44 64 - r . 64 Â°882!g SÂ°Â°Â°28 g REI% gil 4% 10 5 0 1 255%2:. - 0 2 :,2. 3/ES,%/55 35 Z. 0 â€¢1 0. 41 0 8%3: E@I CO - re UÂ·1 9 h {9 - CO m 2 N N 0,1 1 491 0 ---2 r.l- ta e r * â‚¬n 'A - :=1= =81 22:Â¥ R.,59#E Â£214 RA 2!Â°Â°89! 200020 aD N - r- rN â‚¬4 - . ~ Ul Ra li im J M m - E--WWO. 5 0% 4 -" rS ta N or h. 1 . . 2 '4 + m 0 ' alÂ»00 1 M <06) 1 .0 0 0 0 - cy 32 ~ E E u El @12 D.Â°898 20002. MON EN G O N 1 6-**15 1 2 M: *8 - 31 m -:.a 25.5,2 5-'3 2 4 0, 2 N22 0.1 NI G w - 0 *64 â‚¬A 4,> 2 5 1% 2::2 111 3: 1 E -324%:18: 0 #:== r â„¢0OONC, 000020 --. 2/8.. i R 10 - M e d .2* 0,;4 Â« 1 Â« 1 - 9 2 g g m h . Res "r p P - WIN 0 012 - %22 :N *: . le r . Ve 64 O gs li. 2.2.12. 1-1-551-1-th=- 0 0~- g -000) h 000000 M 00 - .ne m I N - N 00 .- == - CO CNI CO to--215 1913 %5 }S 20 Di N..r 10.1 # e. 1 =:Im 2/1 ....22*22:421 F: 99 :IÂ°Â°82: 20002 :- 2-RT Z 2 4 -4 /= ER 2 22/ -5 1 N * 1* 0 co 1 4 I (D 1 O - 10 1 mi . r 1. 14- e 1 0 00 '0 M.n in 2- 1 2 2 2 - N N N rr CO 4 22 1 -2 Â·E 3 ' 1 -2 .C O 1 3 1 i H /1 1 1 5 5 2,2 < 2 4 i ey 1/1 SE ./ .2 te - --C): 0 0 I CO 01 64 /9- N N te 64 e 23 - 0U 1 im@ 1 1; 2 1 % C e = 611: 1 . : . 2 , 18Â¥ 2. .2 .83 12 : 0 - :5 1 1-2*E od Ej G 1 1 -2 1 18# i i#*15 2 lia 2 1 1, fil j l}LHi 111#gliz 12 E 2 E F CD 2: 0000< I 0 u K m a $10,740,392 $10, $11 $11,394.801 $11,624,133 $11,858 $12,096,806 $4,785.000 $5,424,870 $5,668 $5,924,094 $782,096 87,111 0,000 14.1% (890 ,$) (ICL oggs) $10208 57 $10,4 ,7 5 $10,621,000 $101:21% $11,~,088 $11 $11,496,512 617&'958' niÂ·occ'zs 2,712,113 80,2841'291 ,789,857 1,847,5 9 593,60 1 Taxes and Transfers 1,121,575 1,212,792 1236,385 apital Improvements Funded Through R $1,000,000 $1,080,000 $ $1,190,000 $1,245,000 $12,420,6 $13 61,0 $~ ~18, 00 ELS'OZE'ZE pund e,Uese U! 99*'90Â£'z MITO shea 06 U.1 00'OZES 00'0/ES 00'oga 000'022$ 9001 'SlessÂ¥ pex!3 %3 UlnLU!U Budget Projected Light and Power ep nt Fund Summary 2009 Estes Park *LE'69 d a ve/General 67,544 ellaneous Revenue s and Maintenance Iseajout Iley u,04 Inue,tey ieuo,Uppv (HM>I 029) Illg JeUJO;SnO lelluep eillelea LunUJ!U!1AI d10 06eJeAe fee Debt Service 21 luese,d 10 % e se (Aoue!3!190)/leg leÂ»-1 eWB 3 es[c,oue,3/sexel ieuoft!.PPV :ssel pu/3 'All IN lueunsnÂ®v e:ell leuo!11.PPV 9 829'Z eouel.El Ul -BLE spund p e 1 18;SUB e Ja I +V ODIN 'uo!10,1pold Xea )lead -4- 'puewea Mead Pe1O!peid) Jeeu - DIN 'puewea Mead Pejo!Peld -i- (0 10 H M N - 0. agIN 'pueluea JeleAA I * C N Â¤) 0 -Ca) 4 A- 6 .L C r- 43 00 16 00 08 1, Construct Phase 2 <006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 peu!,ep Construct Phase I u,g 211MS3217 Buldules .. I- .1 1 WATER TOWN of ESTES PARK . it .. Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29,2007 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. t.1 ,. . I -f:Â·.4 . 1 . A-6.. a . a . .. Â· .I ... #lty ..... . 0 . , lk--17.Te;.. ... z.4t' 9 Â·rtity L-1 tt,â€¢%21â€¢4, t.â€¢4.444 Utility Goals Frame Water Plant Evaluation â€¢ Reliable and sufficient capacity â€¢ Adaptable to regulatory changes â€¢ Minimize risk to potable water supply â€¢ Minimize operational cost â€¢ Adaptable to existing water system 1 0.. 9 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 ~0~; c.< <L, '' 7 -09, High DBP formation ; potential x High algae count x Giardia risk x x Cryptosporidium risk x Future Regulatory Compliance Issues â€¢ Tighter control of disinfection byproducts - Levels depend on distribution system water age ~ - Impacted by organic content of water â€¢ Cryptosporidium removal or inactivation - Based on the concentration in the raw water - Potential for extra treatment requirement at Glacier Creek 21 1 1 i I f $ 1 I f I 1 39 1 ~1 .1 1 1 ~ 2006 T 2007 2008! 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013. 2014 1.1~2ESWTR& -f Begin f,,2.4 Crypto :..:. '...~ 4 Additional A~.". treatment 1 3.: : - treatment Stage 2 DBPR Crypto finalized sampling : Â£ ; requirement -UÂ»Â·' 5 . , for Crypto defined on-line 5 Current Water Rights â€¢ Available at both plant sites - potentially transferable â€¢ Mary's Lake complication - the BOR can shut down the tunnel and drain lake at will ; â€¢ Glacier Creek complication - low creek flows and 1 freezing condition in winter Treatment Plant Options Considered â€¢ Expand Mary's Lake WTP â€¢ Build new water treatment plant â€¢ Fix both existing water treatment plants 6 Factors Considered for Selecting Preferred Alternative â€¢ Capacity requirements â€¢ Treatment technology - â€¢ Pumping and piping of raw water ~ â€¢ Residuals handling - â€¢ Water rights transfer â€¢ Permitting requirements â€¢ Likelihood of environmental assessment ~ â€¢ COE/BOR involvement level - Preferred Alternative â€¢ Expand Mary's Lake WTP using submerged membranes â€¢ Phase 1 - Expand to 4 mgd capacity â€¢ Phase 2 - Expand to 6 mgd capacity - Build raw water pipeline - Build finished water pipeline 00'll./.....r - Mothball Glacier Creek WTP â€¢ Leaves expansion options open for 9 mgd capacity 7 Potential Changes to Water Rights ./. â€¢ Transfer Glacier Creek rights to Mary's Lake â€¢ Transfer Glacier Creek diversion downstream to Big Thompson River â€¢ BOR is open to change 9%. r 4%44 Membranes are a Proven Technology â€¢ Positive barrier to Cryptosporidium and other bacteria â€¢ Maximize space available â€¢ Approved by the State â€¢ Demonstrated 4-log removal credit for Cryptosporidium I.lill' . I Low Pressure Membranes Meet Treatment Challenges -r.* >Bwtosooridium Giardia / Pe S -1.2.- .:Pe*4~ 1 'r fi a/31 **2--Â·5<rkb. 'F â‚¬2. 29*4 1#.I . - - 3 4949,Â·9Â« - I,A /1 $ ele' ~~irlls' *owe rw Rf ./i- 1... What Is a Low-Pressure Membrane? Membranes can remove anything that is larger than the pores. 4-r - 1 - I'liUiN/MA..4-7 â€¢ 1 11% j - 74,JANT"PVFT ' 4.'443*'09'.-r.Â» 4.,t., *r*"di'-Il -r 9,7 7 .C .11 1,L. Â· . 1 2 vy ' 0 3 1, ur . 9 . . A I . ....... a . . Or#anic macromole*Oles r Itoids rganic 19#. .0 C teria , . Viruses ~~ E) saftdi~ sts 1 11 100 wn 10 0 0.001 0.0001 Reverse osmosis 0 0 hair visible - Nanofiltration to . I. ..L naked eye Ultrafiltration Microfiltration Sand Fitter Submerged Membranes â€¢ Well-suited for surface water treatment â€¢ Can be retrofitted to existing filters â€¢ Will remove Cryptosporidium =%24 3.r.,42 2 Â»94Â·., b.2 4# 1[ffia. Irid~ 1 0 117;7 3 11111. 10 ~ Schedule Water rights work 1 1 Design Construct Design 4~ Phase 1 Phasel Phase 2 Construct Phase 2 ~ 4 1 11 , 1' 1. 11 '11 1 11 2006 ~ 2007 2008 ~ 2009 2010 ~ 2011 2012 2013 2014 LT2ESWTR Begin Crypto Additional & Stage 2 Crypto treatment treatment DBPR sampling requirement for Crypto defined on-line finalized Cost Summary Phases 1 and 2 â€¢ Phase 1 - Mary's Lake WTP expansion to 4 mgd - $5.2 million â€¢ Phase 2 - Mary's Lake WTP expansion to 6 mgd - $5.6 million - Distribution system improvements - $1.7 million Ultimate Expansion to 9 mgd ~ â€¢ Decision can be delayed â€¢ Flexibility for different approaches - Build new 3 mgd WTP 1 - Upgrade Glacier Creek WTP - Expand Mary's Lake WTP to 9 mgd 1 â€¢ Near-term design must allow for ultimate expansion 2* 17-4.1. - Next Steps â€¢ Secure water rights transfer agreements â€¢ Initiate plant pre-design â€¢ Conduct treatment investigation â€¢ Evaluate distribution system hydraulics Typical Submerged Membrane Process Coagulant Permeate 4 Pump ~ - Flash Mixer e. Feed Wate, Â¥ E-~1 OB '. Ap'.'liÂ· .t *191. 4, 1. 1 "11,1 K Â¢ 1-~ 2%4?:.. Plocculation Chamba:--- .77:' High solids Ut f. i.'--f concmtration intank Air 4 13 Overview of the Water, Light and Power, General & Community Reinvestment Fund Financial Plans Town of Estes Park January 29,2007 Presented by: Cil Pierce, Senior Financial Analyst HDR Engineering Inc. 4 Overview and Purpose 4/m 9% of the Presentation 3** F Discuss financial and rate-setting policies * Present financial plans findings & results (revenue requirements) for the: .fEELE" 919 Water utility Light and power utility 44Â§9*S =4 ~ , General Fund & CR -' a Review recommendations and rates â€¢ Gain direction from Board HDR Engineering, Inc. 2 44 nk#41 *%3* 24 Why Establishing Financial/Rate *01 Policies Is Important :1 1114"Mt: 19 U q ll#*04Nm?Â© * Provides management with clear direction I Provides consistent and logical financial/rate / (business) decisions 2 Provides future Boards with the basis or lam reasoning behind past decisions (documentation) m Helps the Town's customers to better 24 38'ZiÂ¢4Â» understand the Board's philosophy 4% Provides a strong message to the outside financial community (bond ratings) HOR Engineering, Inc, 3 - Policies that Promote Financial Stability 24 L >: The Town's utilities should continue to be managed to maintain financial stability over time. f â€¢ Reserves & Minimum Level Â· A R 54 Film- .=1. 4 3 m Capital Improvement Funding From Rates m Target Debt Service Coverage ...... *-(el<(9Â«f . HDR Engineering, Inc, 4 44 1 Reserve Funds (Fund Balance) Â¢ â€¢ Reserve account *, 49**t.':I.... (fund balance) policy is the 41 .%1Â¥Â¥ -...0--i most highly recommended 43 22 â€¢,e,4 * -Ag \ financial policy by the GFOA 'Ff -; /16 ~ (Government Finance *t. 1 Officers Association) a Operating Reserve â€¢ Capital Reserve 5 HDR Engineering, Inc. 4 Operating Reserve ~%*FE",f 4 Reflects the timing difference F.':'40.7- between billing for revenues ~ ),~ and payment of expenses VE. * Protects the utilities in case of j.led,V. A#%*44 unexpected expenses or cash IC '~9~bl~ . flow disruption . 1 laill'll"Flimp -- â€¢ Town's established minimum %: 1~ 4 reserve level is 90 days of O&M expenses 6 HDR Engineering, Inc. 1, I , 34 Capital Reserves 94. is:I*/ . Capital reserves are used to fund the cash flow ./ requirements of capital 22Â» ~%14â‚¬F infrastructure design & I construction. m/atte flf' . * 24 1 - 'A . 0 44 â€¢ Assist in meeting variance in +4 cash flow requirements from .14 324% year to year I Town's established minimum target level for capital reserves is 2% of the asset value. HDR Engineering, Inc. 7 trit Piâ‚¬ * Other Reserve Policies 731 N. ~ â€¢ Maintenance of minimum reserves ~ 0,4 should not, on their own, trigger .,r ./1/li .-3. ./&:1/F 'r' 1--' dI# the need for a rate adjustment 6%* m Rates should be reviewed after two ~: 1~ consecutive years of loss of 4..../, 4% revenue or diminishing reserves as I ==9.. ..../43/9 * a result of covering costs 8 HDR Engineering, Inc. *0 Capital Improvement Funding From j#* Rates Policies >Ze#/ 3% â€¢ On an annual basis, the Town should adequately fund an amount of capital from rates to maintain existing utility infrastructure * â€¢ The Town should target funding from rates an IRP@A amount equal to or greater than annual depreciation expense 1/ â€¢ AS new large capital facilities are added to the Town's systems, consideration may be given to phasing-in rate impacts of this policy HOR Engineering, Inc. 9 ** Target Debt Service Coverage Policies I ~i**i-MUd<f*la=ut dewWN* 4*:=44;**Ej. ' *324. 33% â€¢ Minimum targets 1.30 to 1.50 on outstanding debt that carries a legal bond covenant f. . Target of 1.25 on all outstanding debt service Establishes financial health and stability to rating agencies Benefits = possible lower interest rates on future revenue bonds HDR Engineering, Inc. 10 41 1 ..5- T,1 ji~ Overview of a Revenue Requirement 2 Analysis (Financial Plan Development) 34%2 ~m r I. :1 â€¢ Compares the utility's .2, t EC ~ revenue with its .1- , -9- 1- 1 â‚¬ 47 2 expenses * Provides a measure of i .1 4 - the adequacy of the " utility's existing rates (revenue generation) * Utilizes prudent financial planning E Allows for planning over a......~-=A a longer time horizon HDR Engineering, Inc. j '1%?tâ‚¬/ 44% 4% Key Assumptions of the Analyses M.; 0 4% Time period - reviewed 2006-2013 1%| 2 Each utility should "financially stand on its own" 1~15 â€¢ Utilized the "Cash Basis" approach ~ 1% Financial Planning Considerations: Established minimum reserve levels Use of reserves to keep rates low â€¢ Review adequate financing of capital projects from rates â€¢ Target annual depreciation expense Maintain minimum debt service coverage (DSC) ratios HDR Engineering, Inc, 12 E. Cash Basis Methodology Overview of the Financial Plan Framework + 0&M Expenses + Taxes/Transfer Payments - + Debt Service (P&1) + Capital Proiects Funded from Rates = Total Revenue Requirements - Miscellaneous Revenues (i + Term) = Balance Required from Rates 0 Annual + Total Capital Projects Deprec, Exp.) - - Revenue Bonds (Bond Proceeds) - - Low-Interest Loans - Grants Capital Reserves - Customer Contributions (e.q. SDC's) = Capital Projects Funded from Rates HDR Engineering, inc. 13 Water Utility Financial Plan / . 1 1 i I . -Â·' 24 22% ..4 - ir HDR Engineering, Inc, 14 . â‚¬*ili, 14 Development of the Water Utility Revenue Requirements ?44 * Used budgeted revenue for 2007 - 2008; escalated 1% for growth S./&*lizillimmele 4~ F~ through 2013 -41 R.~llw,~/caLLE#*h â€¢ Utilized utility's 2006,2007 and 4% E~I#41 ~~1,~ 2008 budgeted expenses Escalated costs 1% -8% 3 ~ â€¢ Taxes/transfer payments: Average $150,000/year HDR Engineering, Inc. 15 i, Development of the Water Utility Revenue Requirements (continued) 2*4 4% 9 Debt Service 4% g Existing $300,000 per year to 2010 ~ '1 New debt in 2009 and 2012 tÂ» Totals $600,000/year Use of Development Fees reduces to $380,000 per year fÂ» 22 â€¢ Capital (CIP) from Rates Targeting annual depreciation expense 2005 depreciation expense = $475,000 Gradually implement HDR Engineering, Inc, 16 .. 4 . 4%02 4 Water Utility Summary Capital Plan 4?i~ (Revenue Requireinent continued) mil 3# â€¢ Capital Project Highlights: Total $16 million 3* Updated equipment g Bureau area waterlines Mary's Lake WTP expansion, Pumping, 18" main ($13 million) 35 0 Need to adequately fund CIP from rates: LA Phased-in funding for renewal and replacements $300,000 in 2007 to $480,000 in 2013 2 4/ -* e Use $5.3 million of reserves for CIP funding 4/ 44 Al * $7.9 million in new bond issues 17 HDR Engineering. Inc. fl* Water Utility Capital Plan (000s) Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Capital Equipment $138 $103 $83 S124 $130 S184 $164 Waterline System Projects Total Priority One Projects $200 $125 $250 $250 SO $150 $125 Total Priority Two Projects $0 $0 3150 $0 $425 $216 $230 Water System Master Plan Marys Lake WTF Expansion/Addition $431 34,741 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MLWTF Expansion-BT Raw Pump 0 0 0 0 467 5,136 SO 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 $0 Total Water System Master Plan $471 $4,766 $80 $50 $701 $6,749 $71 f ' 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 1 4% Summary of the Water Utility 9 Revenue Requirements 4. }â‚¬29#Â¢%Â§@ir'}F}} : : *8 17=1 Budget Projected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 zs Â» Total Revenue $2,418 $2,568 $2,598 $2,627 $2,656 $2,686 $2.716 %%*t Expenses *@L Total Operations and Maintenance $2,174 $2.250 $2,312 $2,376 $2,445 $2,517 $2,592 -*2 Total Taxes and Transfers 135 144 145 147 148 150 151 i Cap Imp Funded from Rates 300 320 350 380 410 440 480 t~ Net Debt Service 6 105 363 357 166 384 384 69 Revenue Requirement $2,615 $2,818 $3,170 $3,259 $3,170 $3,491 $3,607 3. :Â· Balance (Deficiency) of Funds ($197) ($250) ($572) ($633) ($514) ($805) ($891) -- Total Bal/(Def as % of Present Rates 9.3% 11.1% 25.0% 27.4% 22.0% 34.1% 37.4% Proposed Rate Adjustment 0.0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% HDR Engineering, Inc. 19 f~ Conclusions of the Water Utility 91 &45 Revenue Requirements 4.."0 1, 1 490111~~!K: 1 *? 3 * Attempted to minimize the rate 4 impacts by use of reserves 43* â€¢ Plant development fees mitigate rate 2@&*aim ..pg- adjustment by: ]*tful Funding capital 0 ~,~3 -,12*61& m.q,4 . *40- # Covering growth-related debt idet ...imill///1N"'IMI'll'll 44% â€¢ Rate adjustments are needed to:IECI~ Gâ€¢- . * Cover inflation z 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 a 3 0 Water rates are projected to be deficient during 3 the test period due to capital expenditures and inflationary increases in 0&M p Capital expenditures are driven by regulatory, replacement, and growth needs 4 â€¢ Revenue bonds require debt service coverage .Â§9 tests (covenants) to be met 9% - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Water 0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 21 HDR Engineering, Inc. ~ Rate Design - The Next Step MEI . .33:. -'ll. -r lrÂ©30* , 4*imi 5 2 . litipreM 0 . '9'4/Kh =,2 49 : ~ 1= .. HDR Engineering, Inc. 22 I......~ j.#4%*it . :%@44 Â¥10 Objectives When Setting Rates ......3-0/*/19#Â» = li 0%591 Â§61 1 94* â€¢ Revenue Stability and , Simplicity Sufficiency (Administrative and 2 * Cost-Based Customer Understanding) 71Â» m Fairness and Equity m Feasibility 13% â€¢ Ability to Pay m Legally Defendable 9% m Continuity in Rate Philosophy m Conservation- Efficient Usage HDR Engineering, Inc. 23 411 Water Utility Current Monthly Rates iiflif .. 1 I. 44Â° 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 3*96: 1" 16.70 26.75 42~*2/. 1-1/2" 20.30 32.50 {tg@Rt' Er 2" 22.80 36.50 83.70 *cy 3" 52.30 4" 73.30 117.30 '19%* 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 Engineering, Inc. 24 te I . a. Water Utility 44@4 %04 Proposed Monthly Rates - Urban > ?>B?PEEÂ¥*M.I.-br ~,2 >?29*e*,q ...F :....V4.. I rÂ®'g Meter Size Present 2008 2009 2010 (Urban) Rates 3/4" $15.20 $16.05 $16.95 $17.90 4*4 7/ 18.63 19.67 1" 16.70 17.64 1-1/2" 20.30 21.44 22.64 23.90 M q 2" 22.80 24.08 25.43 26.85 3" 52.30 55.23 58.32 61.59 0* 4" 73.30 77.40 81.74 86.32 42Â· Volume Charges Present (per 1,000 gal) Rates Residential $3.20 $3.38 $3,57 $3.77 Commercial 3.12 3.29 3.48 3.67 Pumped Flow 4.48 4.73 5.00 5.28 Bulk Water 3.58 3.78 3.99 4.22 25 HDR Engineering, Inc. ..29. Current & Proposed Water Average Â» Monthly Residential Bills 43*37> er:*I Â· ~ . / >/Ar V Water Utility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Rate Adjustment 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% ~*,t Average Residential ** Customer Bill (5,000 gallons) $31.20 *Â» Rates After Adjustment $32.95 $34.79 $36.74 $38.80 $40.97 $43.27 9 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 $12.07 HDR Engineering, Inc. 26 *44"49+41 2 .. 4 Concluding Comments and 8% Policy Direction From Board 3= 4/ * Revenue requirements are designed to meet utility's financial requirements / - 1:, Cost-based Maintain financial stability 49.. % Direction regarding timing and level of rate adjustments 27 HDR Engineering, Inc. . 4 APPENDIX A WATER UTILITY SUMMARY FINANCIAL PLAN 4 . h M ic) 8922%'g *RÂ°12 29*2Â¢'G#*5 353 An =- imal* 22 12 8 0 3 ~ = u 2 2 9 .6. 01 2 IN 1.tr! 212 1 9 C.ZM ; h Cl q . to 2Se W e . 64 64 -- O,0 1 6) AMIN *RER*-IR ==Â°12 80 -22*g 0-3 ' E WKE@Il % in If i i i i * to 2 9 3 4 4,44 #El i CO C, el m 0 . to 0 i 12215 90001_ i g Â£ @ E , *1!M *ZI .1 OCD 1 T <â‚¬ 1 Mtâ‚¬Ul i 9 6 4 ~ g 9 -Mâ€ž gm M :23 1 3 -hÂ®Mels ie 13 3 & 2 4 M N 9,0-00 1 0 O 00 0 1 1- 0 Â£ I UD , O 0. i N to N Ul'C-(10 1 0 h 6 9 C) r r O ~ mm r CON N : 0 00 00 1 0 neARER 9% 19 - 3(0 Rwil 981& 5%01Â§ 5 1-TA M - 01 m %Â§1% 22 1 R I af ; LO N 0. .. . 04 N m* Zi * 1 Ocr) 1 M N- 9 1 e Mgolia immifia#54 959 6519-263%- 95+ Mee A Â¢05 12 2 0 U s e S ~0 -000-00 i -1-0 323200 . h I (0 4 m 1 un cul 0 : 9 9 c. . M h 1Â£1<Rhall : 0- A- N N O . ten 0 --l <0 : 64 h . EX i - tr) COM . - a c'f 0 le le 0 4 *=2 K Al e , â‚¬8 M O co - - CO . 0 09 N 64 ' â‚¬4 e .e - 64 U, un ~ 00 CIN Ou, N.: 0,0 le CO , 0001 /9â‚¬46'> : 8 % 0 2 5 2 - E-: 5 - 0 C I - 3 8 E 3 Ey g --- > 82% pr S kil 2 93 ~ 3- b f * 5 v 212 g i *0 1 Stifig i i.il it; 14 2 *%% 2@1 2:2 BE* 0 CO im *Ed'Â£g igg E/Â§ , I O 1 0 2 E CD LL CD 0 C M 82Â£28< 2 2~-#2 2 8 22 2 1 2 m Â¤Â¤Â¤ 4.4 Budget Prolected 2007 2010 2013 692'06Â£$ 9 1'289'Â£$ eoueled pulld Bulpua lejol 679,967 700,415 43,414 rovements Funded from Rates $300,000 $350,000 $380,000 $410,000 t99'69 L'Â£$ ELD'69Z'Â£$ 2*0'OZ &'ES 89â‚¬,9 :9'1$ LEL'899$ eseeJOUI elet' UJOil enueAeh! leuo! $2,418,248 $2,567,887 $2,626,652 $2,656,035 $2,125,094 $2,266,721 $2,312,282 293,154 301,166 314,370 $146,531 $146,531 $6,410 $356,699 992 C 128,3Â£9$) (86Â£'8Â£9$) (0 L k 'L6 L$) %17'ZE %09 Selebl lueseld to % e se (Aoue!0480)/eou (L99'â‚¬92$) (011'L6L$) 96*LS 99. t.$ 64-DE 03 LE Water Depanment Fund Summary 762,968 787,832 The Town of Estes Park Exhibit 1 $2,174,164 $2,249,699 ransfer $106,12 $134,784 %Â£'6 papeeN juaunsn pv aley leuol;IPPV $) (*94' 18$) 3SBeJOUI elebl LLIOJdes!40Uekl/SleJSUBJ-Lisexel leuo!1!PPV :ssel Seed Aecl Sset lueullsnl (-suoo 196 000'9) 1118 leiluepls tlons and Maintenance luezEE eoueles pung lunulnut,Al 186Jel Revenue itra~eK3 Â°Â°Â°89 80 O O O CDCO . 01 01 09 **57 28â„¢O . 64 64 8Â°20Â°oc':88 QC)(9, N C) OR OC! <C! -~h LO O g g = 2 -CO â‚¬-,2 000*0 0 0 O 0 0 4- e 00 088 9 9 OB W- i E 0 a a 00Â§1* Â§0% 30.Â§01 09=1-h m h h % cy :30; "- e 0 El- CD LO h 0 00%3~ 80 8808082 C~ T 0 09 0- 0-0- ?% R # #% 9 *R Ne â‚¬8 --2 â‚¬8 0012@E Â§0Â§Â§08082 *Ri# 8 g% 2 &3 u' 32 N CO CO g~ O E Beginning Balance $2,931,711 $2,422,636 $2,247,904 $2,034,904 $2,034,904 $2,034,90 $734,904 Plant Development Fee 416,160 424,483 441,632 Water Rights 364,140 371,423 386,428 2007 2008 2009 201 5 Ending Balance $2,034,90 $2,034,90 $734, Capi al Reserves used for Debt 300,000 250,00 845,456 2,158,21 Budget Projected Minimum 90 Days O&M $611,37 Be nning Balance $2,001,800 225:3 For Capital Projects $1,565,00 $2,001,800 $1,652,250 $370,633 $370,633 Water Department Fund Summary The Town of Estes P Exhibit 1 .. Operating Reserve Fund Interest Transfer in Use of Funds ital Reserve Fund (Restricted) est Minimum 2% Fixed Assets, 2005 Transfer in iy4 32 32 32 8 32 32 0 y ng g 000 00000000 - 03 01 0,5 6 4 00 N co â€ž2 co LO 4 . . y#y 4/yytiyy ~ 29 0 al 000 00000000 0 - cricu 0 06 co 0-5 01 75 - 0 .O ggg gggggggg Eg g - CD Cll CD 00 09 CD N 09 - 75 Ui $#0 00*00000 2 01 000 00000000 N & -coN cÂ¥5 06 5 0-3 0 (Â¥5 - 0 N 3232*320000 Z g 000 00000000 r 1 01 0,5 ocic,Â·iedeÂ¢54(9 Ag 032 Cul O 10 01 a @ 2 $ / -0 0 b.f = 0 #2Â°2*ma. 8%Em SEÂ® 0 E EEC o L Z = C W B LU %02 %0-2 %0-2 %02 %02 %00 %00 %00 %00 %00 %00 906 E Seseeloul eleu peAoiddv '!ounoo 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Budget Projected 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% ] Rate Revenue Growth Budget Budget Budget Budget scellaneous Income Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Intenance Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 'ials and Subplies Budget Budget in Year 20 20 Investment Income suolloeuuoo JeleM el# U! 4180,6 ou s! 83941 1941 seleo!Pul goe aeed jeepng 9003 [ O bt Service terest Loan The Town Estes Park in Years Revenues xpenses The Town of Estes Park Water Exhibit 3 â€¢ Cal*tal tmp,ovement 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 Equipment 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 Shady Lane 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 Crystal Tank - Sanborn&Ponderosa 0 0 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 . . GENERAL FUND AND COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND >14% 131~11"I!r * ~1Nll)~~E,/_E I 1 Overview of the General and *4~ Community Reinvestment Funds 7 Financial Plans 2007 - 2013 Town of Estes Park January 29,2007 Presented by: Cil Pierce, Senior Financial Analyst HDR Engineering Inc. General & Community Reinvestment Funds *EE:r7.71 I ...p-.T F./V"M/" 44/ D :4 ~~4>:?,i ~~.,~~ 1 .1 k 4 1 0, t 1 3'z-2 . 41*041-,3 4, , . 1~ Development of the General Fund * Revenue Requirements **2*=aÂ«Â« 91'11** ~ â€¢ Used budgeted revenue for 2007 - 2008; escalated using linear regression for growth through 2013 m $10.5 million 2007; $12.2 million 2013 â€¢ Utilized utility's 2006,2007 and 2008 budgeted expenses â€¢ O&M - $8 million 2007; $9 million 2013 â€¢ Transfers: Average $3.3 million/year HDR Engineering, Inc. 3 Community Reinvestment Capital Plan (Revenue Requirement continued) -1.:. 7 --=iNWRIM.*4 4 â€¢ Capital Project Highlights: Total $5.2 million 4= Operating costs (conference center) end in 2008 - . Other misc. Repairs - $5,600/year ~ m MajorprNect - Stanley Park event complex . Assumed to be cash funded . Any outside funding sources will help balance GF, less transfers -~677 44.,1/ 1 . ...4, A *7 A. 4 HDR Engineering, Inc. ' f tl* Community Reinvestment Fund & Capital Plan / (000' s) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 J~~ Revenue 92*a General Fund Transfers SO $650 $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 Sale of Fixed Asstets (Lot 4, Stanley) 400 850 0 0 0 0 0 9*381* Total Revenue $400 $1,500 $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 ~~~ Operating Expenses ~~~1 Conference Center Lease $215 $217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~~ Repair and Maintenance MateMals/Suppl. 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 $220 $222 $5 $6 ;6 56 $6 3* Capital Projects 4 Stanley Park Master Plan $50 $50 $0 $0 SO $0 60 SP 1/2 Stali Barn#1, Arenas, elec., water 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 1/2 Stall Barn#1: restrooms, drainage 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 SP Site Prep Theatre 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 SP 1/2 Stall Bam#2: Offices. fencing 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 SP 1/2 Stall Bam#2: entrances. signage O 0 0 600 0 0 0 SP Move hay bam. demo. Old bldgs/shop 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 SP 1/2 Grandstand, drainage, fencing 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 SP 1/2 Grandstand, entrances, signage 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 Park ImproEments 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Projects $745 $1,250 $600 $600 $600 $600 $600 Less Funding Sources Resems ($560) SO ($125) (S125) ($125) ($126) ($126) Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds (5) 28 0) (01 (01 0 0 Reserve Ending Balance $1,032 $1,095 $1,013 $928 $839 $747 $651 Al Summary of the General Fund 9. Revenue Requirements :91 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Revenue $10,556 $10,896 $11,152 $11,401 $11,669 $11,938 $12,217 Expenses O&M Expenses $8,048 $7,766 $8,000 $8,239 $8,487 $8,741 $9.003 Transfer Payments 2,723 3,451 3,303 3,321 3,347 3371 3,394 Total Revenue Requirements $10,771 $11,217 $11,303 $11,560 $11,834 $12,112 $12,397 Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds ($215) ($321) ($151) ($159) ($165) ($174) ($180) Balance as a % of Tax Revenue 0.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% Operating Reserve Min. Target 90 Days O&M Exp./Trans. $2,012 $1,941 $2.000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,250 - Ending Balance $2,802 $2,802 $2,481 $2,330 $2,170 $2,005 $1,831 Cummulative Balance/(Deficiency) $575 $254 $103 ($56) ($221) ($395) ($575) 6 HDR Engineering,Inc. ~ Summary of the GF and CR Revenue Requirement Analysis /& 3//5, / â€¢GF revenue is projected to be deficient during 0% the review period due to capital expenditures and inflationary increases in 0&M t~ m Outside funding for capital expenditures of $1.7 million is needed to maintain balance in GF and 1~ complete projects within this time frame I Other options: ~ Defer capital projects . Increase revenue = Reduce operating expenses â€¢ Vehicle replacement fund being established HDR Engineering. Inc. 7 , APPENDIX C GENERAL FUND AND COMMUNITY - -- REINVESTMENT FINANCIAL PLANS 4 (02 X.XX X XXX U.1 LU LU LU LU 00 ujuj : : : 0 . 0 0 0 .....U) 5 < <<<<<<<<<<< m -m.* ,02:422*Nic FEE Onwoool Wit *t *)5-%4 " E El ~ 4- m tr) to ~ El:82%%28*81: C) â€¢r) 10 00 ,- 0> 4- M O 00 <0 O 000: 0) 00 0-) Or C\1 NA 0 . 03 C\1 N M Ir) CO CO O (\1 -h'K .- 4 co 0 (N. CN- h (R " 0 4 4 4 Na; 6 #4 06 4 : uri N C) O N N N LO - 0 - 2= El-rrONMN4 00 r 3%%"NceÂ°?89[2 1% 4- M 10 If) 4- t r 1 A 0!N U-)NOO CO moouÂ·) CD O 000 EMM <<<<<<< 1 CDOCNNOO " 03 00 C) 0 " M lf) 0) 4 # 01 i N N O co r CD CNI <0 1~ ' U-) f OR N- 10 N x 0 " 1 1 9 EN E1G 999.83 5 8-0 R N ' 1 *W â„¢2â„¢12 OOWO O 0 000' N 4.(R : 09 ***4 BE <%0 1 i a . 03 * LO O 527%1*3} &8; 1% CO#CoÂ© 0 ONCOODO i <')*C>r- h G) CON onn*011 CO 1 09 : h Lrt n 00_ m r- El- CN --h R!95}81) -43!= ~WEe in r.- 1 ... 1 1 OCÂ¥)<D C) 000'h m ki IR imENES 2 1 i 1 2 1 1- 0 ~ r- CD ONOMOO LD OC) O 0 0 1,0 i.53*.RGER 8%9 3% %4 9 5% E E 5% , r.. 01 i >05 - 02 0 ..0* CO E E 0 I e 2 -0 k E % g Eff O 0 0 8/1 m E $ i L: 2 e 1 3 i j i 1 1 3 1 i a i J: . 1 1 A i 8 a R 2 4 03 C co a F- C In Page 1 of 2 $6,879,014 $7,131.375 $7,313,093 $7,506,205 $7,724,299 $7,936,736 $8,144,179 Linear Regression 508,432 530,689 541,943 553,679 569,228 584,653 599,181 Linear Regression 210,141 217,118 224,971 229,009 233,123 237,315 Calculated on L&P/Water Revenue ment In Lieu of Tax 175,117 180,932 190,841 197,762 Calculated on L&P/Water Revenue 527,485 542.015 451,012 Linear Regression 676,404 638,658 653,763 700,604 Linear Regression 41,068 46,939 ,861 Linear Regression orfeitures 26,645 28,512 28,644 Linear Regression 171.709 157,682 145,139 137,969 121 124 Linear Regression 75,000 75,000 83,784 82,189 62,310 Linear Regression 261.902 278,542 ression Transfers from L&P and Water 1,003,775 1,087,924 1 129,980 C on L&P/Water Revenue Additonal Franchise and Taxes from Utility Rate Increases 41.029 291,356 Calculated on L&P/Water Rate Increa: sesuadxa sv 0 sesuadx3 s 81*'t L L 098'Lot 8LL'VOL 899' LO L ZOZ'86 990'921 6uijaa sasuedxa s 92Â£'491'L 0*8'Z LE' L LÂ£6'Lt,L'L 96*' *Lt'L 980'290' L L 06' L GE' L sesuadxa Sleali sasuadx3 960'K96 *68'â‚¬26 66*'968 6â‚¬'oze 900'GM? ES'Â£46 sasuedx3 tâ‚¬t,;6Z L 803'fL L t'â‚¬l'69t 009 L 92Â·7'69 L 029'991 sesued*3 uollepod sesued)3 SaOIA.Jes Jol I sesuadx3 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Notes Total Revenues $10,556,692 $10 $12,263,767 029'Â£00'6$ , 21 Kto'Le .'8$ 9Le'6Â£2'8$ ZER'666'ZE 95'8*0'81 sam )!pued)(3 14~190 lejol LE t'ZZE 609'ZLE 89Â£'80â‚¬ ZLE'662 Â£99'06 uolloadsul aA!10 $143,829 $148,144 $152,588 A LOO'Z Â·PEZ'16Â·P Â£69'22.t, sesuedxg *9'92 Â£20'92 962'tâ‚¬ 289'EE 006'ZZ goueinSU!/Slgeuag Budget Projected 990'86Z 98â‚¬'682 996'082 66 L ZEZ UOlleASIUILLIPV lei ue ZZ9'L09 990'28* 628'ZZt, ~TENCE 6LE'9 Lt *6L'*017 Let'36% 0â‚¬8'Zgt 1*9'6â‚¬* Allocation of General fund Expenditures General Fund Exhibit 1 60!laMJ The Town of Estes Park Revenues x 9'OWE L66'6L0'Â£ LE9'9f8'Z OZZ'Â£92'Z ZE'Â£89'8 lualud la a 0!LUOU 4 0 0 05 rE L - m CO 2 a R %81 5 %003*R Raili 1 M OU CD M -CN 1 te .9 000 N ce y ooho M 1 0 I N J:. 0 1 el e . (N. "- cO i r N CD lo In (9 00 r 1 IM .- - 01- erN le 00 00 9 30 Mcm 3 CN 00 Â§% OOlf)*Â§ 9% 0\1 0 N 00 00 LO gg- 033 890028081 Â£ 800*28 OCO 00030 CD Ir) h h 3 N 00 4040 N 4 h - E, 33NRIi 2 B = rn--0- 3 8 - 01000#000 1 - S 2% 54Â°0989 go*% 1 R T t N h 4- Ome!Â¢9 - 1.0 r- 10 N N k X 0 N 00.0. 4 ~Â§ 5 S 05 N N /9 8; 0) 0) r- -OIl E O Â·~ 58 J The Town of Estes Park Page 2 of 2 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Notes Contingencies $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Flat Community Reinvestment 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 Flat 235,89 240,849 240,849 243,553 245,764 247,406 Linear Regression 0 Flat 0 Flat 1,900,000 1, , 1,900,000 1 00,000 ,000 Flat Total Transfers 0,878 $3,302,965 $3,321,152 $3,347,782 $3, 7 $3,394,380 Total Revenue Requirements 7,695 $11,302,787 $11,560,968 $11,834,793 $12, 1 $12,398,250 Balance (Deficiency) of Funds 96) ($138,030) ($139,095) ($137,121) ($137,177) ($134,482) Vehicle Replacement 235,047 272,167 291,648 Line ZL'LE 60'6â‚¬l 0â‚¬0'BEL spund Jo esn Urban Renewal Authority 200,000 00,000 200,000 200,000 Flat 147,069 147,069 152,062 Budget Projected Beginning Balance $2,487,713 $2,349,683 $2,210,588 $2,073,468 Total Balance/(Deficiency) as a % of Tax 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 2$ Â£89'6*Â£'2$ eoueies butpu3 General Fund Exhibit 1 Allocation of General fund Expenditures renee Center Special Events Conve n Visitor Bureau Addition of Excess Annual Funding asued*3 INVO Jo Xeo 06 Operating Fund Interest Transfers 4 39 0 m Budget Budget 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 The Town of Estes Park General Fund Exhibit 2 Escalation Factors Budget Projected ESCALATION FACTORS Revenues Tax Revenue (Includes Sales Tax) Budget Budget Rolling five-year linear regression License & Permits Budget Budget Rolling five-year linear regression Budget Budget Rolling five-year linear regression Investment Income Miscellaneous Income Budget Budget Rolling five-year linear regression Expenses I. 1 4 5 . W22 0018 0 00.010 20010 : :0 13 69 0010 000010 0000 000 8. e 1 69 69 ~ + /5 1 0010 800Â°12 20Â°12 OFÂ° Iii i 1 .I 00 200010 000 0 0000 1 1- 60 1- N 1 {D 22 1 11 cool 000010 O.00 - 1 - - 1 - 1 0%01 1 .0 1 0 00.0,0 00 : 08Â° 8 18 64 R 1 0 in te - 18 - 10 0%01 000010 00 ./ 11 1 10 '5 : E CO G 20- U) <0 i Nia B @32 2 3Â¢ c C UL 1 5235 2 & 2 9 Community Reinvestment Exhibit 3 Page 1 of 2 As Input As Input ark Master Plan 50,00 As Input As Input As Input y Lot 4 Lease As Input Conference Center Lease 214,766 217,125 As Input indul sv 0 eoueualuiely pue Jmdekl %Â£ uo!}e|Jui iejauao sV 6*L,9 %'627Â¤02etfj 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 Notes indul sv O 6t /'9$ 0Z6'9$ 96Z'9$ BZ9'9$ P9f'9$ 90â‚¬'9$ 06/9 BougualuleIN pue 3!edâ‚¬hi 10101 6*1.'9$ 0,[6'9$ 96Â£'9$ 8Z9'g$ P9.'g$ OEV'ZLES 9 t6'691$ WeulaJ!nbek' anuaAati Ie,ol Transfers from General Fund $0 $650,000 $480,00 $480,000 $480,000 $480,000 $480,000 s I t Lde'EZ,$ 0Â£0'*L,$ koz'PL,$ ZLE'*LM 9Â£5'Â¥LM LLS'LEE' 1$ ,80'0Â£ LS spatoÂ·ld leudeo aiojee spun:1 Jo *oue!ouac] eoueles Total Community Reinvestment Revenue 1,500,000 $480,000 $4 ,000 ,000 $480,000 $480,0 0 Budget Projected total Revenue 0,000 $480,000 $4 400,000 850000 Allocation of Water Expenditures Revitalization To at Professional Services/Fees The Town of Estes Park Professional Services/Fees Financial Plan Study scellaneous Unspecified siejuat, le]01 BoueualuleIN pue Jiedah! Revenue , . 00............00:0 .Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°12*f 5Â°19 2 8 18 'Maa'* 3: â‚¬A 00.0.00000.00000:0 2 6 5 5Â°11. s 00 .. 41 8 18 - 24:Â°Â°E Ima- 19 IN ER E 0 2 12 e * 00.0.00.0.00.000:o 00Â°00Â°012 Â§ F E-01, S 53 22 0000(DCN 8 18 0 1 0 1 Z Ki : 1: 4% 56 8 12 1 22 212 69 + â‚¬09 - sÂ°Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°gÂ°Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°18 2Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°Â°Isag :Â°Ig 2 29Â°Â°Â°Â°Â° 0 O 0 0 LO LO 5 1 0 d â€¢rf LO E Uli 0 9 O N . IN 2 1 22 2,2 Q V e O.00.0.0.00.0.0.1. .000.00:0 0 8 18 - 1 - 8 Â¥ 0 0 1 e = 4% 0 8. 0 8 18: :N :9 8 12 : 2 2 2 '2 - 0 0000 ......00.00 0 .00000010 8 18 - ..6 E SÂ°IS E %45Â° : 9!9% 0 18 0 1 % 3 ./ CRL 1 CH. â‚¬n - ./ S.0000:000.0000010 8 2000*001% 4 5 0010 0 9Â§00: 9 ,(r : ir< ci 5 W.- Lrn â‚¬A 0 C C 5 2 U) : - 2 - t 0 5 Ge ZE / C $ fiN EE 52.2 & y2 33:17 1% S I 1%~lifE ~ 2 8 52 5 &444-3 m 3 0 2 3 3 1 1~ i 2 : **g 2 r â€ž 6 1 - =1%23=~ A=&2% 3 5 @f@7 1 2 * 2-3 2 2% & 2 22201&& 22 9 * a 05,= 9 2 o = A s R /= A Â£ 8 1 E Page 2 of 2 aoueles 10 %* uo ppieo P t'9E Â£6'9Zt 9 90@103,~ 101!des 103 spund jo asn 2007 2008 2009 2010 ~ 2011 2012 2013 Notes EOZ'LS9$ li~~r 9.W'LE Reg'960 LE 9'200'LE eouelig bulpul Budget rojected 600,000 vent complex - theater (2008) Barn #1, finish arenas, electric, water all barn #1, restrooms, drainage munity Reinvest nt Exhibit 3 barn, deemtoUshe~dt~d~egs, shop drainage, fencing entrances, signage slieroAd le:,deo Jaue X u ! Sloak)Jd lel!d (liejl )le@Jo LISI:1) 6uipund luejo lejual.uu,eAOffelul spund Jo (Aoue!3400) e pur 31 0/Lies@21 lu@UlnseAL!.abl BU'!punH ienuuv ssaOXEI JO uo!1!P Town of Estes Park Funding Other Capital Proj c CONFIDENTIAL Memo Date: December 27,2006 TO: Randy Repola CC: Scott Dorman Froin: Gregory A. White RE: Fire District Randy: On December 19, 2006 I met with Chief Dorman to discuss how best to proceed with regard to issues the Town of Estes Park may want to address following the defeat of the latest effort to form a Fire Protection District in the Estes Valley. Both Chief Dorman and myself felt that it was important for the Town to respond in some way to address the lack of funding for fire services from the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. During that discussion, Chief Dorman and myself came to the conclusion that the Town needs to approach the issue of funding of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (EPVFD) and provision of fire protection and emergency services to the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley from a different perspective. It is the responsibility of the Town to provide fire protection and emergency services to property within the boundaries of the Town of Estes Park. The Town meets its responsibilities by providing funding to the EPVFD, buying capital apparatus and other equipment, and the Dannels Fire Station. It is the responsibility of Larimer County and/or the Larimer County Sheriff's Office to provide fire protection and emergency services to the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley since there is no fire protection district providing those services. Accordingly, the focus should be based on what Larimer County and/or the Larimer County Sheriff's Office must do in order to meet its obligations and responsibilities for fire protection and emergency services. Accordingly, Chief Dorman and I agreed as follows: 1. The Town and the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department need to enter into a written agreement setting forth the services the EPVFD will provide to the Town. It is important to note that the EPVFD provides the trained personnel necessary for the Town to meet its obligation to provide fire protection and suppression services within the Town's corporate limits. The Town, in recognition of the services provided by the EPVFD, provides funding for the EPVFD, equipment and the Dannels Fire Station. 2. The Automatic Response and Mutual Aid Agreement dated October 20, 1992, between the Town, the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Larimer County Sheriff needs to be terminated as the Agreement requires the Fire Department to automatically respond to all fires and fire related emergencies within the response area. As stated in the Agreement, the County is responsible for fire protection and emergency services within the areas of Larimer County not contained within a municipality or fire protection district. Please note, Section 30-10-511 C.R.S. provides that the Board of County Commissioners of any county in this state may make such appropriation it may deem proper for the purpose of controlling fires in its county. Also, Section 30-10-513.5 C.R.S. allows the sheriff of any county to request assistance from a municipality in controlling or extinguishing a fire occurring on private property. The Section goes on to state that the property may be charged for such services. It is important to note that it is the responsibility of the county and the sheriff to provide fire protection services in the unincorporated portions of the Estes Valley not the Town of Estes Park. It is my and Chief Dorman's opinion that the county, through County Administrator Lancaster, be contacted to discuss this issue. 3. EPVFD needs to form a non-profit corporation for fund raising. This would be the same as the Friends of the Museum or the Friends of the Library which currently raise monies for public entities. This would enable the Volunteer firefighters to focus on their needed duties, including training, and not have to spend time for fundraising. 4. The Town needs to understand the impact of the possible termination of the Town's designation of certain unincorporated portions of the Estes Valley in its Other Protection Area (OPA) designation. Neither myself nor Chief Dorman understand how termination of the OPA designation will affect ISO ratings for the area and/or casualty insurance premiums for the area. Our suggestion is to have Dorman contact the ISO and for me to contact an insurance broker familiar with this issue. 5. Even though Chief Dorman and myself are of the opinion that the Town must respond to the results of the election, we both feel that a unified EPVFD is essential to enable the Town and the County to meet their respective obligations to provide fire and emergency services. Please contact me with how you wish to proceed further in this matter. Thanks, Greg 2