Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Light and Power 1999-09-16
4 .r 4.1 t .' 9, / 4. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Light and Power Committee AGENDA September 16,1999 8:00 a.m., Board Room 1. Proposed Sale of Intermountain CableComm ° Town's Response to Request to Transfer Franchise 2. Finance Department Customer Sun'ey Report 3. Utility Billing Statement Format © Authorization to Purchase Laser Printer and Insert Machine 4. Electric Revenue Bond Issue ° Recommendation of Bond Underwriter 5. Pine Valley Three Phase Conversion Project ° Approve Change Order Request 6. Christmas Decoration Installation Contract ° Approve Two Year Installation Contract 7. Substation Trenching Contract ° Approve Trenching Contract 8. Reports A. Platte River Power Authority B. Financial Report C. Project Updates NOTE: The Light and Pou'er Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. REM Prepared 9/9/1999 ¥ DRAIFF 1-14-11 September ,1999 CABLE SYSTEMS, INC. FANCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A-rIN.: JEFFREY D. ELBERSON, A'ITN.: TENZIN J. GYALTSEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AREA DIRECTOR-NATIONAL DIV. 1873 SOUTH BELLAIRE STREET 1873 SOUTH BELLAIRE STREET SUITE 610 SUITE 610 DENVER, CO 80222 DENVER, CO 80222 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ATTN. M. CELESTE VOSSMEYER 12444 POWERSCOURT DRIVE, SUITE 100 ST. LOUIS, MO 63131 Re: Cable Television Franchise, FCC Form 394 Dear Ms. Vossmeyer, Mr. Elberson and Mr. Gyaltsen on June 28, 1999, the Town of Estes Park received your FCC Form 394 for consent to trans fer control of a cable television permit granted by the Town of Estes Park to Cable Systems, Inc., dated July 27, 1993. Your cover letter ofJune 23, 1999, indicated CSI and CHC-LLC request your consent to an assignment of the cable franchise from Mark Twain to CHC-LLC. At the present nme, the Estes Park Cable Television Permit Agreement is held in tbe name of Cable Systems, Inc. For purposes of review of FCC Form 394, the Town assumes that you are requesting consent to transfer the controlling interest in Cable Systems, Inc., co Charter Communications, Inc.,as the same is set forth in the' Purchase Agreement dated May 21,1999 which is contained in your communicadon to the Town. The following is a list of deficiencies concerning current operation of the Estes Park Cable System under the terms and conditions of the Cable Television Perrnit Agreement dated july 27, 19993 (the Permit). 1. The Permitee must maintain a local office in the Town which shall be open during normal business hours for the purpose of complaints and requests for repair which 1-1 i Page: 2 Date: 09/14/99 may be received at any dine. The Permicce shall also render efficient maintenance, make repairs promptly and interrupt service only for good cause and for the shortest ame possible. In the past, CSI has not maintained a local office nor if che office was maintained, staffed with competent people. At the present time, the current local office and staffing is excellent. Thc Town will require thar the local office be maintained and staffed by competent people duzing the term of the Permit. Also, CSI must omely respond to outages and service complaints.(the Permit, Seccion 8) 2. The current contractor being used by CSI for work wi~in the Town and the County has not been conforming to dic local reguladons concerning proper application for permits and pole attachments. (The Permit Scclion 3 (a) ) 3. The present system needs to be maintained as a state-of-the-art system. At the present arne CSI is correcdng conditions with regard to the system as follows: a. Burying service drops where appropdate. b. Repair noisy power supplies (if €10 lack of rnaintenance). c. Determine if FM ridio signal can be improved and make improvements. d. Complete installation and broadcast capabilities at the high school. e. Correct condidons idendfied during the joint use pole audit currently being performed by the Town. (Phase 1 of this pole audit has been sent to CSD The Permitee must continue to rruintain the existing cable communication system as a state-of-the-art system. There has been concern that the system has not been maintained in the past. Ghc Permit, Section 7(d) ) 4. CSI is required during the 4:h, 74, loth and 138 year of the Permit Agreement to hire qualified consultant to make an independent review of the systern to confirrn that the company and system are in substantial compliance with the Permit. This should have been done by CSI in 1997. CSI needs to assure the Town that this type of compliance review will be done in a Emely fashion including when the Town will receive this review. (rhe Permit Section 30). In August of 1994, CSI, the Town of Estes Park and various individuals entered into a Settlement Agreement with Richard Lynn Pratt. I have attached a copy of said Sertlement Agreement to this letter. The Serclement Agreement called for CSI to have a public access channel (Channel 39) operated pursuant to rules and procedures that were a part of the Settlement Agreement. Since the Town of Estes Park is a parry to the Settlement Agreement, CSI u,ill be required to comply with the terms and condioons of the Settlement Agreement. The public access channel needs to have a banner screen and signal at all nmes. If Channel 39 is only acdvated when cornmuniry programming is available, neither cable users nor the public know of - the enstence of the channel. This issue needs to be addressed by CSI. The proposed Consent and Approval of the Local Franchise Authority to Transfer Control of the CATV Franchise provided in the FCC Form 394 contains a provision unacceptable to the Town. Specifically, paragraph 3 (d) of the proposed Resolution is 1-2 1/ Page: 3 Date: 09/14/99 objectionable. The Town is willing to accepr language allowing the sale of capital stock of Charter in a "IPO" transacdon so long as ar least a majority of the capital stock of Charter remains under the direct or indirect conuo] of Paul Allen. In order for the Town of Estes Park to consent to the transfer to Charter of control of CSI, the above items need to be adequately addressed. Very truly yours, Gregory A. White GAW/bf 1-3 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Utility Billing/Finance Department 226 Survey mailed 115 Returned = 51% CUSTOMER SURVEY CARD To better serve our customers we are seeking your input to the Utility Billing/Finance Department customer service interaction. Please take a moment to complete the following san'ey and return it in the enclosed envelope to the Town of Estes Park. Thank you for assisting us in improving the service we provide to our customers. The Customer Survey Card was mailed out to a random sample of the Town's utility customers. 1. Inthelast 12 months haveyou needed to contact the Utility Billing/Finance Office? Yes 29 = 26.13% No 82 = 73.87% 2. Did you stop in the Municipal Building or contact us by phone or letter? Person 24 = 52.17% Phone 21 = 45,65% Letter 1 = 2.17% 3. Did the Utility Billing/Finance Staff treat you courteously and professionally? Yes 39 = 95.12% No 2 = 4.88% 4. Were your concerns adequately addressed and resolved? Yes 38 = 92.68% No 3 = 7.32% 5. Was the information you received from the Utility Billing staff accurate and useful? Yes 39 = 100% No 0 = 0.00% Customer Survey Card Comments: • Why not make the paying of utilities all to be paid in one check. • Very impressed. • Great Service! • I prepay my utility bill $50.00 at a time. It is for a seasonal cabin and 6 months ofthe year is only basic charge. Usually Oct through Mar. The other six months varies with usage. • With the additional housing being occupied in your service and there is an increased demand for water. Is the Town prepared to increase capacity/pressure to adequately supply the need? --- • 100% more customer service oriented than in early 80's. • In previous years when I've had questions they were always answered fully and courteously. • Front desk woman is more positive & helpful. 2-1 . • You do great! • Everyone has always been very friendly. • Whenever I have needed your help you have always been courteous and professional. Thank you. • Contact has always been satisfactory or better. • Great staff! ! They all deserve pay raises! • Staff has always been very good whenever I had to contact you. • We have two cabins in Loveland Heights. We open in June and close in late Sept I prepay for a year or so. • Summer cabins uses little electricity probably not practical. Since my bills are usually small, I pay ahead & maybe then run a little behind. I would like the convenience of a retlin envelope. I could live with no statement whed I still have a credit - save you mailing and return envelope when I have a credit - put each month usage statement in with current bill wben I owe you money. I hate to go through the motions of writing a check and mailing for less than say $20-30. Program your computer to bill when $ reaches 'X' dollars (say 10) then again when it reaches $300+ no bill when credit or small owed. But bill should show monthly usage for each month. • An error was made in our billing. Billing dept contacted us. Explained. Credit was issued - staff was courteous & professional. Billing dept.found error. • We have a cabin at Glen Haven - and are satisfied with our service. • We were in your office in March when we movEd to Estes Park- We are very satisfied with tbe sen'ice. Your people were very courteous to us. e The staff is very helpful! • They do good work • I enjoy prepaying my bill 3-6 months in advance thereby saving time and money each month. • #3 Always. 2-2 OTHER SERVICES: 1. The Utility Billing/Finance Department is seeking ways to improve our system to you, our customer. We offer a direct payment option from their bank account Do you currently participate? Yes 11= 10.28% No 96 = 89.72% Would you like more information about this option? Yes 9 = 9.38% No 87 = 90.63% 2. The Utility Billing/Finance Department ofTers the budget billing option to customers in which they pay a flat amount for eleven months and settle up ( balance due or a credit refund) in the twelfth month. Do you currently participate in budget billing? Yes 2 = 1.85% No 106 = 98.15% Would you like more information on this program? Yes 10 = 9.80% No 92 = 90.20% 3. The Utility Billing/Finance Department is researching the option to allow the customer to pay their utility bill to the Town with a credit card. If implemented, would you be interested? -A Yes 18 = 17.48% No 85 = 82.52% 4. Utility Billing is researching the option of changing bill format from a postcard to an insert with a return envelope. This change would allow us to include additional information stuffers and other material. Do you like the current postcard bill, or would you prefer an insert type bill with possible additional information? Postcard 55 = 52.38% Stuffer 50 = 47.62% Other Services Comments: • We live in Missouri and the bill is often torn when it reaches us, also the mail from Colorado to Missouri is very slow, more time needed. • Response to quesddn 4 change from postcard to stufTers. Why waste more taxpayer money with this hairbrain scheme? Plain Stupid. • I wish stuff'ers were banned by law. • I think the return envelope is a good idea it speeds up the customer's time. • Don't change anything-no one needs the extra stuff anyway. • Response to question 4: Definitely prefer different form of billing. Post cards could very well get lost or torn in mail. • Please!! Include return envelope and stuff all other stuff is tash. • I live out state - but have summer home there- most does not apply to me- would like the stufTer. • Have no opinion at present time on #4. Is it cost effective? Seems as though it would be more expensive & not necessary. 2-3 • #4 Providing charge does not get raised to pay for stuffer. (postcard can easily get lost). • No problems with system of direct from bank to finance office. John thanks. • #4 Postcard keep cost down. • I like dripping it off over by the bank It's very convenient • Payment box should be located from main tourist center. • #4 NO SAVE OUR POSTAGE $$$ • I'd prefer to receive a return envelope but do NOT want to receive extraneous advertising! It's annoying and environmentally wasteful. • Could you build a drop-off outside so that you could make payments during closed hours? • Don't want more paper. • With automatic pay a postcard is all we need. • No Problems. Everything seems fine. 2-4 Memorandum Date: 08/31/1999 To: Light & Power Committee Cc: Richard Widmer, Town Administrator, Richard Matzke, Director of Light & Power From: Monte Vavra RE: Utility billing insert costs Background and Budget: During the 1999 budget process $45,000 was budgeted to purchase the hardware necessary to initiate a new utility billing statement. The staff proposed researching the costs involved in a letter size statement format that would be mailed in an envelope and also include a return envelope versus the postcard billing statement that has been used for the past ten years. Advantages of a statement format ranges from customer service by being able to provide the customers with more information about their bill, ability to insert additional information such as announcement to the recently held "our fest" celebration, notices to our customers about rate changes, etc. Disadvantages to changing the billing system are that some customers do not like additional "junk" mail, extra costs in forms, postage, and new equipment. An additional advantage is that the burster machine that is in the Finance Department is not working and is so old that replacement parts are not available and would need to be replaced if we stay with the postcards, estimated at $2,500 (+A) Costs: So far, the identifiable costs to convert to an insert billing system that can also add one stuffer per mailing is estimated at: Hardware: Folder/inserter machine $8,000 to $8,500 Annual maintenance for folder/inserter $1,200 (est.) Laser printer (Desktop unit) $3.000 to $5,000 Total Hardware costs $14,700 Printing of bills: Informal quote of 50m postcards $1,237.50 Informal quote of 50m statements, Window and return envelops $3.440.00 Increase in cost of forms $2,202.50 Postage costs: Estimated postage for 1 month postcard $1,552.85 Estimated postage for 1 month insert $2,631.24 Increase in monthly postage $1,078.39 Increase in annual postage costs $12,940.68 Total increase in costs for year one $29,843.18 The HTE utility billing software does accommodate a larger size billing statement, since we would be working with live utility billing files we have not attempted to print sample copies of the base statement format for the Committee to review. If we would desire to have the format customized outside of the base statement parameters there would be additional costs involved. Recommendation: I am recommending that the L&P Committee authodze the conversion to a billing statement format and authorize the purchase of the hardware and forms. 3-1 btr-15-33 Wtu Uj; 46 Mn rircir JMrrfrril rnA liu• JUJULUJUWA . I W- IEbancorp Piper Jaffrab Sude 2100 1050 17th Stre.R Denver, CO 80265-2101 303 820-5700 Seplembcr 15,1999 Mr. Monte I.. Vavra Finonce Officer Town o f lisles Park 170 Mo(Gregor Avenue. P.O. Box 1200 Esic: Pork, Colorado 805 17 1.)epir Monte: We are pleased to !13VC this opportimity to respond to the Town of Estes Park's Request for underwrilinu scrvices. U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffrity is a nationally recognized municipal bond firm with an outstanding, track record in Colorado. Performance in our business is generally measured quantitatively. by citing the number of transactions, dic voluine of underwritings, or the ranking of the finn. While U,S. Bancorp Pipcr Jaffray stands out in each of these categories. none of these standards measures ilie quality oflhe service provided to our clients. Our real success comes from our commilment to tindurglanding >·our needs and objectives and meeting them crcatively. ET.ECTRIC REVENUE EXPERIENCE U,S. Rancorp Piper.laffray has a great deal of experience undemriting electric revenue bonds. Sinc.c 1 995. l J.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray has served as underwriter on 35 issues totaling $ 1.9 billion. In Colorado, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray hassan:ed as underwriter on the lost three cleclric utility issues for the Platte River Power Authority. Schedules 1 and 2 reflect the Securities D;ila Company C'SDC-) 1998 National Rankings for Public Power by number of issues and principal amount undcrwritten, both ofwhich place U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray in the top 20 1]01 ionally. MARKETING OF BONDS U. S. Bancorp Piper j afiray s distribution system offers a balanced capacity for both retail and ingtitillion,1| sa|CE. Firms with a distribution emphasis on a single market segment are not always ilbic lo adjust to changing niarket conditions 011 terms which best serve t],c issuer. U.S. Bancorp Piper JofTray s balanced dislribution system 2.9.qures 1bat clients wil] have access to all segments oftlic !:ix-exempt markel, allowing ihe flexibility for the sale of bonds to hc managed rollic issiper's best edvantage under any given market conditions. A total of 1.394 inveslmeut executives located in ]30 branch sales offices form U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray'S retail sales force. This large sales force ranks U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray ainong 11,c lop tell firms iii the country b:~sed on Ilic number of invesuncnt executives. Nondeposil Investment products are not infiured by the FDIC. oro not deposits or other obligations of or guarantood by U.S. Bancorp National Associarion or *,5 F.Hilialrs, and involve invest,nont rizks, including possible loss of the principal amount invested. Securities products and $6642= are offered through U.S. Bancorp P,por Jafiray Inc., member SIPC and NYSE, Inc., a subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp. 4-1 btf-15-33 Wtu Uu ·40 MI I rircrt JMrrani i nn Ilv• v'V.ULV*UlA . . V ./ U.S. 14:incorp Piper Jaffmy places special emphasis on pre-marketing Colorado issues so that local residents have Sutticient knowledge and understanding of each transaction. Retail support (particularly Colontdo retail) is a key element in many bond issues because retail investors do not demand as high a yield af insijlutional investors. M the post U.S. Bincorp Piper Jaffray has made sure local residents have access to bonds by aclveilising in local papers and placing retail brokers at the issucrs public office to take orders for bonds. Ifthe Town would like the local residents to have access to the bonds Ihcse two options may be of significance. Many U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray brokers were former Boclicher & Company brokers and have an established clieni bse that owns the Town's bonds. This saine client base would be targeted for Lhesc new bonds. U.S. [loneorp Piper Jaft?Ay's retail sales force in Colorado is divided as follows: Evergreen (3) Denver (22). die Denver Tech Center (18), Boulder (8), Colorado Springs (10), Pucblo (S), and Durango (2). While each retil account executive is engaged in all aspects ofthe securities bushicsq. cach individual is able and qualified to Sell municipal bonds. UNDERWRITER'S 1)ISCOUNT Tbc table below provides a breakdown of U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray's proposed underwriter's discount assuming an insured, bank qualified 20-year issue: Expenses/ Clearance S.50 Management Fee 1.00 Takedow·i~ 4.25 TOTAL $5.75 While the discount is a part of the cost ofthe financing, the more significant factor is the interest r:,te. For example, with n 93 million bond issue a 25 cent difference in the undenwiter's discount resulls i n a ec,sh'savings of S750 to the Town vs. a 5 basis point difference in interest ratcs res,1!ling in n cost/savings of $9,093 to the Towl) on a present value basis. We believe that U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray con deliver 1}le lowest interest rates. Wc wocild sincerely welcome the opportunity to sen'e as investment bankers for the Town of Estes Park. With Our position as a local and national leader in municipal finance, and our capital and personnel, wc know that U.S. Bancorp Piper Ja[Tray would be an outstanding choice as your investment banker. Siticerely, U.S. HANCORP INPER JAFFRAY 014.joa- EQuk- 0 0 /3 9/ i 7 · '3760.Ul..·. 82/d,f, Li,id:i A. Clark P. Jonathan Heroux Managing Direclor Vice President 4-2 SEP-15-99 WED 09:49 AM P ]FER JAtt KNY r MA liu. ouoocupool 1 0 w-1 Schedule 1 1998 Rankings (Combined Utilities/Public Power Only) Managing Underwriters' Ranking Full Credit to Book Manager # Of Mkt. Principal MEnaging Underwriters Issues Rank Share Amount ------------- Salomon Smith Barney Holdings 32 1 12.3 1,331.5 Goldman. Sachs & Co. 20 2 7.7 2,005.3 Piper, Jaff.ray Inc. 13 3 5.0 50.9 J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. 12 4 4.6 1,375.3 Painciabber Incorporated 11 5 4.2 2,653.7 Bernardi Securities, Inc. 8 6* 3.1 10.8 A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. 8 6* 3.1 118.3 Bear, Stearns & Cc. 8 6* 3.1 5,121.3 [.ah:win Brothers 7 9* 2.7 1,559.6 9* 2.7 74.4 Amoritas Inves=mant Corp. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter 7 9- 2.7 973.1 7 9* 2.7 118.1 Boink of knerica Dain Eauacher Incorporated 6 13* 2.3 78.8 Prudencial Securities Incerporated 6 13* 2.3 151.1 Robort W. Baird A Co. Incorporated 6 13* 2.3 17,4 Merrill Lynch & Co. 6 13+ 2.3 788.8 SunTrust Equitable Securities Corp 6 13- 2.3 27.8 Joe Jolly & Co., Inc. 5 18* 1.9 15.5 George K. Baum & Company, Inc. 5 18* 1.9 21.4 Regions Investment Co., inc. 4 20* 1.5 21,7 Kirkpatrick, Pettis, Smith, Polian Inc. 4 20* 1.5 4,3 J. C. Bradford & Co.. Inc. 3 22* 1.2 157.1 Dougherty Scia.it Securities LLC 3 22* 1.2 27.7 Sutter Securities Inc 3 22' 1.2 102.1 Ruan Securities, Inc. 3 22* 1.2 6.5 Griffin, Kubik. Stephens & Thompson 3 22% 1.2 12.6 Leo Oppenheim, A Division of BOSC, Inc. 2 27* 0.8 14.7 Ross, Sinclaire & Associates, Inc. 2 27' 0.8 6.3 Crews & Associates, Inc. 2 27* 0.8 * 2.2 Hutchinson, Shockcy, Erley & Co. 2 27* 0.8 14.3 PNC Capital Markets, Inc, 2 27* 0.8 4.0 Banc One Capital Market.= Inc 2 27* 0.8 11.9 . wachovia Br~r,k 2 27. 0.8 66.9 Keyforp/Key Capital Markets, Inc. 2 27* 0.8 4.0 Flrst Southwest Company 2 27• 0.8 6.4 Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. 2 27' 0.8 9.2 Prager, McCarthy & Sealy 2 27* 0.8 60.1 Everen Securities. Inc. 1 38* 0.4 3.0 1 38- 0.4 1.0 Itoosevel: & Cross, Irc. Source: Securities Data Company (973) 622-3100 Date: 09/Feb/1999 (•): tie. 4-3 SEF-15-99 Wtu UB;43 Hn rirLK JMrrAMI rna 11'J. JUVULUJU/1 0 . .... Schedule 2 1998 Ranking (Combined Utilities/Public Power Only) Managing Underwri ters' Ranking Full Credit to Book Manager Principal Mkt. # of Managing Underwriters Amount Rank Shara Issues ---Il----Il---- -Ill-- --I-- ---.I---- Bear, Stearns & Co. 5,121.3 1 29.4 8 PaineWehber Incerporated 2,653.7 2 15.3 11 Goldman, Sachs & Co. 2,005.8 3 11.5 20 Lehman Erochers 1,559.6 4 9.0 7 J,P. Morgan Securities Inc. 1,375.3 5 7.9 12 Salomon Smith Barney Moldings 1,331.5 6 7.7 32 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter 973.1 7 5.6 7 Merrill Lynch & Co. 788.8 8 4.5 6 ST Alex Brown 159.5 9 0.9 1 7. C. Bradford & Co., Inc. 157.i 10 0.9 3 Prudwntial Securities Inccrporated 151.1 11 0.9 6 A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. 118.3 12 0.7 8 Bank of America 118.1 13 0.7 7 Sutter Securities Inc 102.1 14 0.6 3 John Nuveen & Co.. Inc. 100.0 15 0.6 1 Dain Rauscher Jncorporated 78.8 16 0.5 6 Ameritas Invescment Corp. 74.4 17 0.4 7 Wechovia Bank 66.9 18 0.4 2 Prager, McCarthy & Sealy 60.1 19 0.3 2 Piper, Jaffray Inc. 50.9 20 0.3 13 SunTruct Equitable Securities Corp 27.8 21 0.2 6 Dougherty Suff.it Securities LLC 27.7 22 0.2 3 Artemis Capital Group, Inc 22.6 23 0.1 1 Regions Investment Co., Inc. 21.7 24 0.1 4 George K. Baum & Company, Inc. 21.4 25 0.1 5 Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated 17.4 26 0.1 6 Joc Jolly & Co., Inc. 15.5 27 0.1 5 Lco Opponh:im, A Division cf BOSC, Inc. 14.7 28 0.1 2 Hutchinson, Sheckey, Erley & Co. 14.3 29 0.1 2 Griffin. Kubik. S tophens & Thompson 12.6 30 0.1 3 Dane One Capital Markets Inc 11.9 31 0.1 2 P.ornardi Securities, Inc. 10.8 32 0.1 8 Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. 9.2 33 0.1 2 Davenport & Company LLC 7.0 34 0.0 1 Fifth Third/The Ohio Company 6.7 35 0.0 1 Rkan Securities. Inc. 6.5 36 0.0 3 First Southwest Company 6.4 37 0.0 2 Ross, Sinclaire & Associates, Inc. 6.3 38 0.0 2 RigAlow & Company 6.1 39 0.0 1 Source: Securities Data Company (973) 622-3100 Date: 09/Feb/1999 (*): tic. 4-4 I ---- 1 . 1 . George K. Baum & Company INVES™ENT BANKERS MEWDEM 717 BEVEWTEENTH STREET NEW YORK STOCK EXCHAN*. INC- SUTTE ISDI CHICAGO COCK EXCHANGE, INC. DGINER. COLOAAD© *00= TELEPHONe BU,; 292-1000 September 15, 1999 Monte Vavra Finance Officer Town ofEstes Park 170 MacGregor Ave., Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Vavra: George K. Baum & Company is pleased to respond to your request for proposals to imderwrite the Town of Estes Park's Electric Utility Enterprise's revenue bonds. We are glad to be considered for this engagement and believe our extensive experience in marketing bank qualified bonds and structuring electric utility revenue bonds; and our proven history of service to the Town makes us an excellent choice to serve as undeIwriter for your upcoming issue. Our firm has served as lead manager for 59 Colorado bank qualified issues in the last four years (see attached list). The best market for these bonds will be among banks which will provide for lower coupons -by up to 10 or 15 basis points in today's market - because o f the benefits the banks receive from holding these bonds. That is the market we will target and anticipate we would sell 100 percent of the Town's bonds to banks and 13-ust deparbnents. Bob Lombardi, Executive Vice President, who is in our Denver office, has priced all of our firm's Colorado bank qualified transactions. Bob will serve as underwriter of the Town's bonds. In Colorado, our targeted bank investor base includes 125 separate accounts composed of commercial banks and trust departments. By participating ill so many bank qualified transactions, we are in constant contact with our banking industry customers who purchase this type of bond which we believe will be valuable to the Town in the marketing process. We offer the Town two experienced bankers: Doug Houston, Senior Vice President, has nearly 30 years of municipal and governmental finance experience gained both as an investment banker and municipal official and lists his experience with municipal utility financings among his most important. Vicki Mattox, Senior Vice President and Co- Manager of the firm's Colorado Public Finance operations, focuses exclusively on Colorado issuers and will serve as the co-lead banker for the Town's financing. Vicki and Doug were George K. Baum & Company's lead bankers in underwriting Estes Park School District's 1995 S6.665 million financing. Vicki also has served Rio Blanco Conservancy District as its lead banker for the recent refunding of the debt associated with its hydroelectric facility. Additionally, Doug has worked with Jim Kreidle, Executive Vice President, on transactions for the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. 4-5 CX-r . 1-9. 1 -7 4 2 Page Two Doug has gained extensive experience responding to credit rating agency and insurer inquiries about electric utility deregulation through his work with Colorado Springs Utilities for which an average of 54 percent of revenues have come from electricity operations over the last six years. Doug advised Colorado Springs Utilities on its $76 million Series 1992, $118.5 million Series 1994, $48.9 million Series 1995, $70.2 million Series 1996,$121.5 million Series 1997, 394.9 million Series 1998, and $65.5 million Series 1999. The Utilities retained Doug as a co-senior manager in underwriting its $345 million Series 1991. (Please refer to the attached list of our recent electric utility transactions.) To serve as undenvriter our fee would be $5.00 per $ 1,000, or $15,000 for a $3 million bond issue. We are excited about the opportunity to provide underwriting services to the Town - which is ill an area o f the state we believe we know well. We are committed to allocating all of the necessary resources to assure that you receive the highest level of service. Please feel free to contact either of us with questions at (800) 722-1670. Sincerely, 769 ##5 044~CK-4 Dou*Houston Vicki Mattox Senior Vice President Senior Vice President Co-Manager, Colorado Public Finance Enclosure 4-6 ~1. . .q . 1 ... C .¢,1,":I'li, liallk {'twlificti [,·.til..,clit,1,% .Ialtua,·v I. 1 99(, liliough Kil,trant,ct· I.1.1 449 Number of Company Transactions Rank Bigelow & Company 72 1 Hanifen, Imhoff, Inc. 61 2 George K. Baum & Company, Inc. 59 3 Kirkpatlick,Pettis,Smith,Polia 34 4 U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc 27 5 Dain Bosworth Inc. 15 6 A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. 7 7 Norwest Investment Services 7 8 RAF Financial Corporation 5 9 Banc One Capital Markets Inc 2 10 Coughlin and Company, Inc. 2 11 First Southwest Company 2 12 Isaak Bond Investments, Inc. 2 13 Miller & Schroeder Financial 2 14 Prager, M¢Carthy & Sealy 2 15 Principal Financial Sec. 2 16 Salomon Smith Barney 2 17 G,•,rge I.. lt:,im, & C ~„:111).Illy i Electric I .tilit3 *17:4110:ictic,11% . ~ . .!21020· 1.1995:hrout,h Ne»Gnber-11 1999.".. t .. ./. 2 -C Date Issuer State Bium Role Amou,It 04/18/95 Wcmego-K=.sas KS CO-MOR 2,200,000 05/02/95 Intermountah; Power Agency UT CO-MGR 44,830,000 05/02/95 Intermounlun Power Agency UT CO-MGR 327,180,000 07/31/95 ' Chillicolhe·Missouri MO SOLE 2,735,000 09/14/95 Seallte,Washinglon WA CO-MGR 60,000,000 09/25/95 Undsborg-Knnsas KS SOLE 1,350,000 10/10/95 Intermountain Power Agency UT CO-MGR 169,735,000 12/15/95 Hildale-Utah UT SOLE 20,005,000 02/08/96 Springville-Uuh UT SOLE 8,015,000 02/]6'96 Intermountzin Power Agency ur CO-MGR 329,560,000 05/2Q'96 InteimountaM Power Agency UT CO-MGR 1 14,715,000 07/29/96 Inlermountain Power Agory UT CO-MGR 118,790,000 08/23/96 Intermountkin Power Agency UT CO-MGR 371,005,000 05.9.3/91 Kingsbridge MUD - TX LEAD 16,363,000 05/02/97 Hildale-Uch UT SOLE 1.380,000 08/26/97 Pecan Grove MUD TX LEAD 7,307,000 10/14/97 Utah Associated Muni Pwr System UT SOLE 4,155,000 12/22/97 Anthony-Ke,sas KS SOLE 3,345,000 03/02/98 Columbia-Missouri MO CO-MGR 28,295,000 oyo]/98 Colorado WD· Rej and Pwr Dev Auth CO SOLE 3,140,000 05/04/98 Holion-Kansas KS SOLE ],300,000 06'02/98 Wellington·KInsas KS SOLE 8,133,000 08/13/98 Unh Associsted Muoi Pwr Systern UT CO-MGR 30.615,000 0&128/98 Intermounuin Power Agency UT CO-MGR 83,095,000 08/28/98 ]Dermounm in Power Agency UT CO-MGR 456,400,000 10/12198 Sabstba-Kansas KS SOLE 3,995,000 10/26/98 Lchi-Utah UT SOLE 4,785,000 01/15/99 Wyoming Municipal Fower Agency WY SOLE 15,050,000 01/28/99 Spriniville-Ulah UT SOLE 4,040,000 03/15/99 Holton-Kansas KS SOLE 5,240,000 04/13/99 Gmen River Jt PwrE Weter Board WY SOLE 26,165,000 05/12/99 Guam Poutr Authority OU CO.MOR 349,]78,000 TOTAL 32 Iuues 2,622,105,000 Source: Securities Data Corp. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Richard E. Matzke-,IN-E«- Date: September 15, 1999 Re: Pine Valley Three Phase Conversion Project Approve Change Order Request BACKGROUND: In September 1998, the Pine Valley Three Phase Conversion construction contract was awarded to TSI, Inc for an estimated cost of $142,934. The contract amount was negotiated by our engineers, ESC based on the unit cost bid by TSI on the Meadowdale Hills and Glenhaven three phase conversion projects earlier in 1998. When we began trimming trees in preparation for the Pine Valley project, several property owners raised concerns about routing of the line and the validity of our easements. After initial review, we postponed the project until the property owners' concerns could be addressed. After meeting with property owners and verifying our rights to rebuild the existing line, some modifications were made to the design, including the use of additional tree cable, and construction resumed. In addition to the design modifications, the cost of traffic control was also incorporated into this contract and the tree trimming line item was removed. The project is complete and we have received a change order request from TSI Inc to increase the total cost to $145,654. BUDGET/COST: The change order amount of $2,720 can be funded from the 1999 Overhead Capital Budget. RECOMMENDATION: The Light and Power Department recommends that the change order request from TSI Inc. for $2,720 be approved. REM 5-1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Richard E. Matzke 2.259- I)ate: September 15, 1999 Re: Christmas Decoration Installation Contract Approve Two Year Installation Contract BACKGROUND: The Light and Power Department has traditionally provided for installation of the Town's annual Christmas decoration. This is one of the benefits the Town receives as a result of owning and operating an electric utility. In 1996, the Department first bid out the installation of Christmas decorations to a private contractor. Rocky Mountain Lawn Care was the low bidder in 1996. In 1997 the installation contract was renegotiated with Rocky Mountain Lawn Care. The installation contract was rebid in 1998 and Rocky Mountain Lawn was again the low bidder. Attached is a summary of original contract amount and final approved cost from 1996 to 1998. The installation contract was bid again in August of 1999. The project was advertised on August 18, 20, and 25 in the Trail Gazette Attached is a copy of the bid specification that was furnished to interested contractors. A mandatory walk through of the project was conducted on August 27, 1999. BUDGET/COST: The 1999 budget for installation of Christmas decorations is $50,000. The following bids were received: Contractor 1999 Amount 2000 Amount Rocky Mountain Lawn Care 46,500 48,500 Rightway Electric 49,800 52,300 TA Enterprises 41,200 42,436 RECOMMENDATION: The low bidder for 1999 and 2000 was TA Enterprises. They submitted a complete bid and took no exceptions to the bid specifications We have contacted their references and are satisfied that they can perform the work. The Light and Power recommends that the 1999 & 2000 installation contract be awarded to the low bidder, TA Enterprises at a cost of $41,200 in 1999 and $42,436 in 2000. REM 6-1 Christmas Decoration Contract History Year Contractor Original Contract Final Approved Amount Cost 1996-97 Rocky Mtn Lawn Care 49,750 52,242.55 1997-98 Rocky Mtn Lawn Care 58,750 58,750 1998-99 Rocky Mtn Lawn Care 43,338 50,830.16 6-la TOWN OF ESTES PARK CHRISTMAS DISPLAY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE - 1999 - PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS - Listed are conditions essential to the successful completion of the project. 1) GENERAL: The Town seeks a qualified contractor to perform the annual installation and maintenance of the Christmas exhibits. 2) BID DATE AND TIME: Submit bids by September 7, 1999 by 5:00 p.m. to: Mike Mangelsen or his secretary. 3) PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR: Ed Dragon, Line Superintendent Light and Power Department 170 MacGregor P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-5331 Ext. 3501/FAX: (970) 586-6909 4) PROJECT LOCATION: Basically the downtown area of Estes Park and extending eastward on Highway 34 and 36, southward on Highway 7, and westward on Highway 34 and 36 approximately (2) miles. 5) APPROXIMATE OUANTITIES: String twinkle lights in approximately (150) street trees in the downtown area, the trees will be marked with engineering flagging. Hang approximately (100) rigid rebar Christmas trees on Highway street light poles on Highways 34 and 36, and 7, once again the poles will be flagged. Erect (7) plywood displays located more specifically at: A. Christ Figure - West Elkhorn B. The Card Shop - In front of Municipal Building C. The Nativity Scene - Bond Park D. Christmas in Bugville - Bond Park E. The Lady in the Shoe w/Helicopter - Intersection of Stanley Avenue 6-2 . CHRISTMAS DISPLAY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE - 1999 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS and Highway 7 F. Santa Claus and Reindeer - Top of Cliff above Black Canyon Creek G. The (3) Wise Men w/Sheep - South side of Big Thompson River at the Bridge H. (5) extremely large trees in Bond Park using colored lights supplied by the Town. These trees will be done in a circular fashion. I. The Bighorn Sheep Island at the Hwy. 34/36 intersection using groundcover lighting. J. Wrap bridge rails at Confluence Park with string lights. Also the (2) seasons greetings displays on Highways 34 and 36. 6) PRE-BID WALK THROUGH: There will be a mandatory pre-bid walk/drive through of the project on Friday, August 27 at 10:00 AM. Meet at the Town Municipal Building, Mike Mangelsen's office. Bids will not be accepted from bidders that did not attend this walk through ! 7) CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITIES: The contractor will provide all labor and equipment to pick-up, install, maintain, and remove after the holidays the previously described trees and displays. It is a must that the contractor own or rent a bucket truck. This is a requirement of this project. No agreement will be made with a contractor that does not have a functional bucket truck! 8) PROJECT SCHEDULE: Start Date: Not before October 15, 1999 Deadline for Completion: The Wednesday before Thanksgiving Day. Removal Date: For Displays and Rebar Trees by January 15, 1999 For Twinkle Lights by February 25,1999 The Town is interested in getting a price to maintain the decorative lights once a week for the period from January 1St to February 14th. Please provide that amount in the space at the end of these specifications. 9) REPAIR OF BREAKAGE OR DAMAGE: Any broken or damaged articles of any kind whether to trees or displays be it by 6-3 CHRISTMAS DISPLAY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE - 1999 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS wind or contractor error is the contractor's responsibility and expense to repair. All items must return to the storage facility at the end of the project in as good if not better condition than when taken from storage. 10) TOWN'S OBLIGATION: The Town will supply all bulbs and string lights and will also be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stars and the cross. 11) RUNNING LIGHTS: The contractor will check and change all burned out lights of any kind on Tuesday and Friday nights. 12) CONTRACT AWARD: One contract will be awarded, for a (2) year period. Provide separate bids in the space provided. The management and payment of sub-contractors and employees is the duty of the general contractor. 13) BID TYPE: Lump sum (not to exceed). The quantity of actual trees decorated and hung may deviate from the estimate. Please provide a price per tree decorated and rebar tree hung. A final count will be made in the end and the lump sum bid will be adjusted either up or down depending on the final quantity. 14) UNFORSEEN DIFFICULTIES: Any difficulty not addressed by the specifications will be covered by the Town's General Conditions for similar projects. A copy of these conditions is on file at the Municipal Building. 15) INSURANCE AND WORKMENS COMPENSATION: Prior to the notice to proceed, the contractor will provide the Town with proof of Workmens Compensation and Insurance to the following limits: A. Statutory Workmens Compensation B. Contractor's Public Liability and Property Damage: 6-4 CHRISTMAS DISPLAY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE - 1999 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Bodily Iniurv: Each Person $250,000 Each Accident $600,000 Property Damage: Each Accident $250,000 All Accidents $600,000 Automobile Public Liability and Property Damage: Bodily Iniurv: Each Person $250,000 Each Accident $600,000 Property Damage: Each Accident $250,000 16) ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF BIDS: The Town reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids. 17) WORK OVER AND ABOVE: Any work accomplished that is not described by these specifications will be negotiated and compensated separately. A written proposal of additional work must be submitted by the contractor. I have read and understand the terms and conditions of the project: PROJECT: UNIT COST: Per Tree Decorated: DATE: Per Tree Hung: Lump Sum for Displays: BID AMOUNT for 1999: Lump Sum to maintain decorative trees from Jan. 1St to Feb. 14th: BID AMOUNT for 2000: We have a functional bucket truck with operator: Yes: No: SIGNATURE: COMPANY: ADDRESS: 6-5 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Richard E. Matzke- 4~--~-- Date: September 15, 1999 Re: Substation Trenching Contract Approve Trenching Contract BACKGROUND: This project will provide for trenching and installation of conduits and equipment required to reconnect the new Estes Substation to the existing distribution circuits fed from the existing Estes Substation. The project involves installation of approximately 4,500 lineal feet of duet line in various configurations from the new substation, south to Highway 36, west to the existing south chamber parking lot, north across the Big Thompson River to Highway 34, then east to the Nine Hole Golf Course driveway entrance. The project was advertised on August 18,20, and 25 in the Trail Gazette. A mandatory walk through was conducted on September 3,1999 with three contractors attending. BUDGET/COST: The Light and Power Department requested $300,000 in the 1999 budget for the Substation trenching contract. The Light and Power Department received the following bids: Aztec $132,220 A-1 Excavating 114,223.52 This project will be reimbursed from proceeds of the Electric Revenue Bond issue. RECOMMENDATION: The Light and Power Department recommends that the substation trenching contract be awarded to A-1 Excavating, the low bidder at a cost of $114,223.52. REM 7-1 1 1 r O t- O ' ONU 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.".0. 2222 1 1 1 1 M e U 1 1 1 1 1 1 re) U„ i e h 00 , 1 1 %.AN =- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 o 11 1,1 1 111 9i 1 111 11 1,1 11 1,1 : 11 11, i '' ' ' ' u Nt- r-, i 1 1 M a -01 1 UUMO- 1 i 0 2 11 11 1 :.8. g. U I i 4 2 11 11 1 11 111 11 11, 11 111 It '11 11 111 11 111 1,1 111 1,1 1,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It , 1 1 1 1 1 11 1, 1 11 1, 1 11 11 1 U rn M 1.: >4 Ira 1 1 11 , 1-0 1 1 wl el vl , 00 ~ M wn t- i x7 I 1 1 0- n r- : t-1 1 -It 1 @ E- Rel N N 1 WO 1 1 Itt /1 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lilli 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It I /1 1 /1 .1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 mOO 1- m Vii 1 Ch E- i 1 1 Chi l 11 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 i 00 1 Ni I 1 11 1 1 1 cial ' Cl E- 11 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 11 11 11 A V; #52 4- 0,0 -1 - F M U C,3 -t 2.09 5 -1 ii ¤1 U E .8 .9 .1 e m ~8 & 22 0= O 2 W O BI_~T 1999 1998 1998 TOTAL REVENUE 7,532,829 598,646 5,091,746 650,552 4,941,030 ng Transfers Out 654,534 54,545 436,356 53,811 430,491 Source of up 3,882,335 557,083 2,375,973 295,741 2,011,456 1,154,065 88,411 67,658 1,798 £41'L6L'[ L00'961, L[6'004 4 06£'854'L L88'[*1'I 545't,§ I 808'069 6[17'l,L E[VI.IdVE) IRIO:IZIE[ SHWUIGNHOCE[ ME[A Lt,0'6ZE 562'84 LLL'684 5 1 1'56 Z[9'ZLL'I soinlipuodxa Il!1!duo luouno 06 1'9ZI'* ZOE'445 SIL'068'4 668'0I 6 ZZO' I [Z<6 SmIn.LIGNEIcIXEI UV1O1 048'PI 51$ 05Z'901$ 1 [0'102$ ([SE'tiES) (£61'869' I $) SmIn.LIGNEIJXEI lIZIAO Charges for Services $6,989,029 $555,29 $595,423 $ 220,800 23,857 154,866 29,875 scellaneous 173,000 19,498 164,350 25,254 Customer Accounts 446,292 30,324 0§8'Lt, 1791'80£'1 £Z9 000'El Intergovernmental 150,000 15,811 FOR THE MONTH H?ING AUGUST 31, 1999 & 1998 9/13/99 TOWN OF ESTES PARK I-H8 SHANHAmI:IO (ADNEHOI:13(I) SSEIOXE[ InI £10 (AONHOIdE[(I) SSEIOXEI REVENUES . ................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ................... ...................................... .................................. ........................................... ........................ ................... ................... ................... ................ ... I ............................... ................... ................... ............ ..................... ............... ................... ................... .................. ................ ............. I. ........... .......... ....... ........... ......... ..... 1 .......... 1. ... ..... .. .................................................. ............. '''I..'.'. '.'..'lili'.. I.'...'.'' ... ............ ,< ............ ...............n.. ............ UJ ·················~~ ... .......... UJ ......... UJ O ................... LL a- ........ ............... O LU -) ................ ....... ................ ................ m . U.0 ... 62 ..... ....... ............................. .... . ......... lili... ....... ........ 1. lili'.''I ............. .................. ................. ................ .................. ................... I .............. .................. .................. ..'.'.'. ..... '. I. '' .......... '''I ........ .'.'....'' ................... 0 .......... ..................T di ................... 0 0 MM WalSAS Loadh99 9/13/99 -0-1997 19,000 -0-1998 6661. -e- oaa daS Inf Jdv J el/\1 uer STES PARK 2-88 39Vd PURCHAS 24,000 - 23,000 - : 22,000 21,000 20,000 000'9X 000'Lk 000'9L 000'SL -000'*L . ................ ............ ..............::IT $~S*§8§9 0,0.Sks' .8.4 0 .r%.Tr~ 0....S.,1, ' .41,§*S,%8* ................ ................... ....................................... ........................................ ........................... .......................... .·.· ··bkkakt****$$$$*$8$$$8**$*SMS*8888&%*Rmkkk%**SSS ~ ............. ..................... .................................. N***%8*999%8%*69*99:** .................................. ***:98*&9*99*$9X .................................. .......................................... ............. R«**8*%6:*:*:Rkk**966%3*99$:*22$693* ~ ............. ........................... Sh*$:%*44%%**%**an,$8*8**%:*8*%§%66:ki 3 Aill*$98**%83*833*8*Sk*%693%4****8%8*68 .......................... :'.-:-:-I-I-i-I-'-C-:....I-:I-:.-:...·:-I.I.:- ·...-0-'-I-I-I·3**%****SSSSSRS=SSRS=SkASSSS:Sk*****99*kkr*****4#r 2- .......................... 8****%%1111**§***Skkeke**3$:%*** .................................... te*%8****999**3**32%8%8*%*3***9$$8**8% lili............... *........lillil ........... ..1............. --- ---. ---+414#jifilimaFY*FO~**AH#Im184FFWIKA#tmfM~TdIN*tr ······················· 4%12*9%&*%:**8§$&%%%*%8**$*89$9***9%8**%8**ST ..................... 1 ........... 0 HMM *1H1NOW Loadh99 9/13/99 01997 966 L 0 666 J Q ODa PO unr JeIN qa=1 uer MONTHLY ENERGY PURCHASES £-88 39Vd 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 - 000'000'9 000'000't 4- 000'000'Z 8,000,000 - k4483*k·*9%%44·Nk**Rk*jak*%42%2244**RkkB:~S:**RRkkk,%*:*Rk** ABRER**kiR*:4%*:BRIRR*R~:*%*38$2***Rk*Rk***24%421*1111,p 1 tkkkB:%%%%%%%%**242%%*%*%%%%22*%%*ka#ka*#,0*9**6 k**§sess$*****%1.1.mwigigiimmim~111,# 1I 1 1 kctrt==ibt=z=tti==rul./.=..#.2..cm~g~=r---t//=1~ 1 U*44**sks*4*y**§%§44 1 R€§44444*§4444*~ mail:*M/44.Re/*SS:§ CIA--,LUEm~I:~UICZ20~I~a.a:,1.i 1*$8*kket:$# t**:**99**%8::8 0 03SVHOWnd HMM al.A 01997 60,000,000 · · 01998 mi 999 ~ 1999 YTD VS 1998 ~ 2.72% 100,000,000 80,000,000 - 000'000'0* , ........................... ......... ........................ .............. .......................................... ............... ......... ......... .................. ......................... ............................................... .............................................. -19%8*%**89*9**%%*%**SR*$99§ :§ ....................................... ...................................... ............................ ..................................... .......................... ........................... .................. .............................................. ............................................. :·:·:31*§*99*8%8*%&*MS*§*%4%83§ 8 ................................................................ ................................................................. ........................... ........................... .................. ........................... .................................................... *%8%83%83*§8***%8%8§:*§$333* ~ .................................................... ............................................ ...................................... ......... , .............................................. ....... .......... I. ..........lili...lili..I ......................................... ........ .............................................. ................. 6.......:.........·........:..::..::::..-*.:::::..·.·k**SiS*38%9*:kkk**R**:*68,0,"~'* 3 ..... .. . ... ... ........... ... ... 0. .... .. ........... ..... ....................................... lilli. .................. .......................... ............................................. ............................................. Z< 4 0 ................................................... .................................... .......................................... ..................................... M UM...... %3...... 24%1%%15%11.0.14*~ 2 ........ ........................................... ........ .................. .......... ........................ .A#11,11%8**%8****8**%8%8*Si 2 ............................................ ................................... .............................................................. ............................................................. 235556 22222222,:ISSESSSSSJIIIIIIIIJIIICJIIIICIIIIIII:I:l~ 4/ ......................................... .......................................... .................. #wnmmMmamMmmmMMrimmE*%4 ................................... .................................... 1***§8***8********§86 2 ......... .................. k*B#69*9$***~8**S*%69%8%8*S*****8****%8***IRRBR****%8* 3 <C ........................... 0 ......... ........ ......... -. ($) 93-199 A-IH.1.NOW Salehist 9/14/99 01997 966 K 0 000'099 666Lm ESTES PARK IG POWER DEPARTMENT LES BY MONTH 6-88 39Vd 800,000 - 750,000 700,000 - 650,000 - 600 000 - 000'009 000 09* 000'004 000 09£ 000'00£ . ............ .....tkk*~////~6~~~//0//~*///0<~0///////////////*k/kB**/B///kk//////r ......... ........... ···········-·······.... 777777Erl....... ........... §2*k**Rkk*i&%*RiR*§§*R*Rkkk*R*Rekkk***6*8§%*RRk :~ - ~ · ·.· >4%%**$$%8%8*Rk***3%SM*&*6$8%6$8**8%6$398**%66 -·········· £4k44%2%*6&*&***§*e*k*se*:%***28$63§ ..... t***Rek'kil'll' i.likkil*Rk#ki ABkkkR*k***SRR:kRRR**:BkRY#* Bkk**R**%%*8*§8**Sk?:*8 m.#TESTES@ ...................................................... 0 ($) 93-IVS 31.Va 01 kIVBA Salehist 9/14/99 01997 866 K 0 000'000'4 666 K m Oaa PO des Bnv unr Ael/\1 Jdv Jel/\1 qa=1 ESTES PARK IG HT AND POWER DEPARTMENT DATE ELECTRIC SALES 6,000,000 - 2.83% 1999 YTD ~ VS 1998 9-88 39Vd 8,000,000 7,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 000'000'£ 000'000'Z 000'000' L