HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 12/16/2014 - Memorandum From Jon Haukaas And Lance Smith Re: Regionalization Study Phase 2 Final Report2&72%(5
PHASE Imagine Immm Imm Imag aagggg ag aggin in innnneee ee e the th tth thhhhee eee result re reeeesu ssuu suuuuuuulttt 2
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT
Regional Water
Treatment Solutions
for the Tri-Districts and
City of Fort Collins
Imagine the result
Regional Water Cooperation Committee
Regional Water Treatment
Solutions for the Tri-Districts and
City of Fort Collins
Technical Memorandum – Financial Analysis
October, 2014
Technical Memorandum
Phase 2 – Financial Analysis
Prepared for:
RWCC
Prepared by:
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
600 S. Cherry Street
Suite 600
Denver
Colorado 80246
Tel 303 316 6500
Fax 303 316 6599
Our Ref.:
04141801.0000
Date:
October, 2014
In association with:
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Means Consulting, LLC
Spencer, Fane & Grimshaw, LLP
This document is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity for which it was
prepared and may contain information that
is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of
this document is strictly prohibited.
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
1. Executive Summary 1
1.1 Scope of Work 2
1.2 Summary of Non-Financial Analysis Results 3
1.3 Summary of Financial Analysis Results 4
1.4 Recommendations 6
2. Introduction / Background 8
2.1 Phase 1 Scope of Work and Summary 8
2.2 Phase 2 Scope of Work 10
2.2.1 Task 2.1: Conduct Data Development and Analysis 10
2.2.2 Task 2.2: Conduct Workshop 2 – Preliminary Findings Workshop 11
2.2.3 Task 2.3: Prepare TM 2 - Summary of Phase 2 with
Recommendations 12
3. Data Development and Analysis 13
3.1 Demand Projections 13
3.2 Financial Analysis Model - eForecast 16
3.3 Scenarios 16
3.4 Analysis and Comparison 19
4. Financial Analysis Results 22
4.1 Key Assumptions for Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios 22
4.1.1 Plant Investment Fee Revenues (PIF) 22
4.2 Scenario Analysis and Results 23
4.2.1 Scenario 1 - Status Quo 23
4.2.1.1 Additional Assumptions for Status Quo Scenario 23
4.2.1.2 Annual Costs for Status Quo Scenario 24
4.2.1.3 Net Present Value for Status Quo Scenario 26
4.2.2 Scenario 2 - Collaboration 27
4.2.2.1 Additional Assumptions for Collaboration Scenario 27
4.2.2.2 Annual Costs for Collaboration 29
4.2.2.3 Net Present Value for Collaboration 30
i
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
4.2.3 Scenario 3 – Modified Collaboration 30
4.2.3.1 Additional Assumptions for Collaboration Scenario 31
4.2.3.2 Annual Costs for Modified Collaboration 32
4.2.3.3 Net Present Value for Collaboration 32
4.3 Comparison of Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios NPV Costs 33
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis 34
5. Summary of Non-Financial Analysis Results 37
5.1 Non-Financial Attributes 37
5.2 Organizational Model Case Studies 38
5.2.1 Case Study 1 - Platte River Power Authority (Title 29) 38
5.2.2 Case Study 2 - South Metro Water Supply Authority (Title 29) 39
5.2.3 Case Study 3 - Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District
(Title 32) 40
5.2.4 Other Entities Considered 1 - Water Conservation District 40
5.2.5 Other Entities Considered 2 - Title 29 Intergovernmental Agreement 41
5.2.6 Summary of Governance Options 41
6. Recommendations 43
Tables
Table 1 Non-Financial Benefits of Developing a Regional Solution 3
Table 2 Net Present Value Cost Comparison ($1,000,000’s) 6
Table 3 Phase 1 Highlight of Goals and Attributes of a Regional Collaboration
Scenario 9
Table 4 Current and Projected Peak Day Water Demands 14
Table 5 Capacity Expansions (MGD) Summary 24
Table 6 Status Quo Scenario - 2013 Facility O&M 24
Table 7 Status Quo Scenario - 2014 SCFP O&M 25
Table 8 Status Quo Scenario - Facilities and SCFP Capital Improvement Plan
Costs1 26
Table 9 Status Quo Scenario - 2015 – 2045 Costs and Net Present Value 27
ii
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Table 10 Collaboration Expansions (MGD) Summary 28
Table 11 Collaboration Scenario - Dedicated Plant Value 28
Table 12 Collaboration Scenario 2 and Modified Collaboration Scenario 3 - Plant
Allocation and Buy-In Value 29
Table 13 Collaboration Scenario 2 - Capital Improvement Plan 30
Table 14 Collaboration Scenario 2 - 2015 – 2045 Costs and Net Present Value 30
Table 15 Collaboration Expansions (MGD) Summary 31
Table 16 Modified Collaboration Scenario 3 - Capital Improvement Plan 32
Table 17 Modified Collaboration Scenario – 2015 - 2045 Costs and Net Present Value 33
Table 18 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo, Collaboration and
Modified Collaboration Scenarios ($1,000,000’s) 33
Table 19 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo, Collaboration and
Efficiency Factor Collaboration Scenario Sensitivity Analysis 35
Table 20 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo and Collaboration
Scenarios under Base Case and $5.00 Greenfield Plant Sensitivity 36
Table 21 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo and Collaboration
Scenarios under Base Case and 3% Discount Factor Sensitivity 36
Table 22 Non-Financial Benefits of Developing a Regional Approach 37
Table 23 RWCC Deal Breakers and Governance Options 42
Figures
Figure 1 Current and Projected Peak Day Water Demands 15
Figure 2 Current and Projected Annual Water Demands 15
Appendices
A Workshop 2 Discussion Summary
B Capital Improvement Plans
C Budget Information and Annual O&M and Capital Costs
D Status Quo and Collaboration Annual Costs and Net Present Value
E Modified Collaboration Annual Costs and Net Present Value
F Case Studies and Governance Model Information
iii
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
List of Units, Abbreviations, and Acronyms
City the City of Fort Collins
CIP Capital Improvement Plans
C.R.S. Colorado Revised Statues
DCWRA Douglas County Water Resource Authority
eForcast Financial Model
ELCO East Larimer County Water District
ENR Engineering News Record
Facility Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility
FCLWD Fort Collins – Loveland Water District
IGA Inter-Governmental Agreement
JSPIA Joint Southeast Public Improvement Authority
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
NPV Net Present Value
NWCWD North Weld County Water District
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PIF Plant Investment Fee
PRMPA Platte River Municipal Power Association
Project Team ARCADIS US and sub-consultants
PRPA Platte River Power Authority
R&R Repair and replacement
RWCC Regional Water Cooperation Committee
SCFP Soldier Canyon Filter Plant
SFE Single Family Equivalent
SMWSA South Metro Water Supply Authority
SPIMD Southeast Public Improvements Metropolitan District
Study Board South Metro Water Supply Study Board
TABOR Taxpayers Bill of Rights, Colorado Constitution
TM Technical Memorandum
TMA Transportation Management Association
iv
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
1. Executive Summary
The City of Fort Collins (City) and the Tri-Districts are members of the Regional Water
Cooperation Committee (RWCC or the Committee). The City owns and operates the City of
Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant (Facility) with a rated production capacity of 87 million
gallons per day (MGD) serving land within the City boundary. The Tri-Districts own and
operate the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (SCFP) with a rated capacity of 45 MGD serving
lands both within the City boundary and lands in the general vicinity of the City boundary
including North Weld County Water District.
It is estimated that there are total of about 41,227 water service connections within the City
boundaries of which about 30,074 (72.9%) are on the City distribution system, 8,587
(20.8%) are on the Fort Collins Loveland Water District, 2,566 (6.2%) are on the East
Larimer County Water District distribution system and there are no service connections
within the City boundaries on the North Weld County Water District distribution system.
The Facility has water production capacity in excess of the City’s long term needs (greater
than 30 years); excess capacity totaling approximately 15 MGD. The Tri-Districts have total
water production needs in the long term (greater than 30 years) estimated to be
approximately 112 MGD.
RWCC is exploring the potential for a regional water treatment Collaboration Scenario that
would bring a more efficient, long-term and cost effective strategy to the management of
both plants that will not only benefit their customers but benefit the Fort Collins and Tri-
Districts area beyond the next 30 years. The investigation is limited to the two water
treatment plants and does not include the City and Tri-Districts water resources or
transmission systems.
In order to further evaluate this opportunity, RWCC retained ARCADIS US (Project Team1).
The approach included three phases: Phase 1 - Foundation of Regionalization Project,
Phase 2 - Financial Analysis, and (if authorized by RWCC) Phase 3 - Strategic
Implementation Development of the project. This is the Executive Summary of the Phase 2
Technical Memorandum.
1 In addition to ARCADIS US (prime and technical), the Project Team included the following sub-
consultants: Means Consulting, LLC (facilitation), Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (financial
analysis), and Spencer, Fain, Britt & Brown, LLP (governance models).
1
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
A foundation for the Phase 2 report is the RWCC agreed to list of “deal breakers” that
guided the development of a collaborative solution as follows:
1. Any Collaboration Scenario requires equal representation: 1 entity = 1 vote.
2. Any regional solution can have no decision or say regarding the end use or
distribution of water.
3. There must be fair and equitable treatment of all staff.
4. There must be equitable financial representation of all assets that are brought to
the table.
5. All charters and other amendments of any regional solution must be made by
unanimous decisions by all parties.
6. There must be cost of service clarify (how are expansions to capacity, plant
improvements and regulatory issues allotted and paid for).
1.1 Scope of Work
Phase 1 of the Regional Water Treatment Solutions for the RWCC project established a
vision of a potential Collaboration Scenario for the Committee members. Phase 1 also set
clear goals and expectations for this project through completion of the following tasks:
1. Prepared an Integrated Work Plan
2. Conducted Introductory Interviews with Stakeholders
3. Facilitated Workshop 1 on September 27, 2013
4. Prepared TM 1 summarizing the activities of Phase 1 (submitted to RWCC on
October 15, 2013)
Phase 2 of the project included an evaluation of the potential financial and non-financial
implications for RWCC members and stakeholders. The following tasks were completed as
part of Phase 2:
1. Conduct Data Development and Analysis
2. In September 2013 the RWCC provided the projected peak day demands over the
next forty year for all for utilities participating in the RWCC.
3. Over the period September to November 2013 these projections were reviewed at
several working session as well as Workshops 1 (September 27, 2013) and 2
(November 8, 2013) and were used in developing the Financial Model.
4. The Draft 1 ‘Phase 2 Financial Analysis - Technical Memorandum Financial
Analysis’ was submitted to RWCC on December 23, 2013.
5. Written comments to Draft 1 were received from the RWCC in January 2014. The
RWCC offered a financial model prepared by the City of Fort Collins.
2
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
6. A RWCC Workshop was held on January 27, 2014 to discuss the Draft 1 report
submitted on December 23, 2013 and the RWCC written comments.
7. RWCC provided revised demand projections prepared by each of the four RWCC
members.
8. Workshops were held on June 2, 2014 and July 18, 2014 to review the financial
model outcomes using the revised demand projections prepared by the four RWCC
members.
9. A review and collaboration with the Financial Model prepared by the City of Fort
Collins were reviewed at various times during this period ending in September
2014.
1.2 Summary of Non-Financial Analysis Results
A number of benefits to a regional water treatment Collaboration Scenario are identified and
described in this report. These include the financial benefits in addition to non-financial
benefits. Table 1 summarizes non-financial benefits of a regional Collaboration Scenario to
RWCC members individually and/or collectively.
Table 1 Non-Financial Benefits of Developing a Regional Solution
Non-Financial Attributes
1 Each entity’s historical investment is recognized.
2 There is an opportunity to maximize the current treatment plant capital
investments estimated to be $192 million for the City of Fort Collins and $115
million for the Tri-Districts.
3 A regional entity will collaboratively identify and plan for the Fort Collins & Tri-
Districts area future water capacity needs (greater than 30 years).
4 A regional collaboration will leverage collective bonding authority for treatment
improvements.
5 A regional collaboration will send a positive signal to both the customers and
the Fort Collins and Tri-Districts area business community.
6 Equal governance representation of the four entities (one entity one vote) will be
ensured in the management and operation of the treatment plants. The likely
alternative to access the available excess production at the City’s water
treatment plant is become a customer of the City of Fort Collins without the
benefits afforded by regional collaboration.
7 Each entity will retain individual planning control within their service area but will
share regional Fort Collins & Tri-Districts area planning information to make
cost effective long term (greater than 30 year) treatment plant improvement
decisions.
8 The ability to wield more governmental power as a group than individually.
3
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Non-Financial Attributes
9 Will leverage individual strengths for the benefit of the region.
10 A regional approach will create treated water supply reliability and flexibility to
meet the Fort Collins & Tri-Districts area water demand in the long term (greater
than 30 years). Opportunities to maximize water resource portfolios (Poudre
River and CBT sources) by matching the capability of each water treatment
plant to the available supply which could potentially bring significant budget
savings.
11 An opportunity to provide uniform finished water quality to meet regulatory
changes and Fort Collins and Tri-Districts area customer needs.
12 An opportunity to leverage the purchasing power of a collaborative approach to
better control treatment plant operation and maintenance costs.
13 The ability to optimize staffing and scheduling of the two treatment plants.
14 Provide cross-training benefits to treatment plant personnel.
15 Standardize employee and operation and health & safety approaches between
the two treatment plants.
16 Send a positive signal to the public regarding government collaboration to
enhance efficiency of investment and operation.
As part of Phase 2, the Project Team investigated a number of governing options based on
input from RWCC in Phase 1. The case studies and governing body comparisons indicate
that there are four alternatives for forming a Collaboration Scenario that could work for
RWCC. However, based on the analysis of the four alternatives, RWCC should consider
forming a Title 29 Authority as it meets the basic criteria of RWCC for developing a regional
Collaboration Scenario and provides the flexibility to address the interests of the parties.
1.3 Summary of Financial Analysis Results
The City and the Tri-Districts provided detailed information of their current financial as well
as capital programs for proposed long term improvements associated with both plants. The
City and the Tri-Districts also provided estimates of their water production needs (demands
for treated water) for the next 40 years. The information was used in developing a financial
projection that identified the costs as defined by the Net Present Value (NPV) over the 30-
year period to both the City and the Tri-Districts (for each of the three Tri-District entities).
The scenarios included:
Status Quo – No change in the current separate ownership and operation of the Facility and
SCFP. The Tri-Districts and City own and operate the two separate water treatment plants
4
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
based on current agreements. This scenario analyzes the projected financial outcome if the
Tri-Districts and City continue to operate as separate entities.
Under the Collaboration Scenarios, a regional Collaboration entity is formed. The Tri-
Districts and City consolidate treatment plant assets, where the Collaborative entity owns
and operates the two water treatment plants and is responsible for all expansions and
future capacity additions. O&M and capital costs for SCFP and the Facility are also
adjusted for comparison between the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios. Future
capital works are based on meeting the combined projected maximum day water demands
of the Tri-Districts and City.
Collaboration – a Collaborative treatment entity would have responsibility for the planning
for and funding of all treatment plant capacity additions and operations including the
assessment and collection of a treatment Plant Investment Fee (PIF). Under this scenario
all O&M, minor capital and repair and replacement capital projects are allocated based on
relative projected annual demands while expansionary capital costs are allocated based on
relative projected annual peak-day demands.
Modified Collaboration – Same as Collaboration except the capital cost do not incorporate
adjustments for PIF revenues and each entity would be individually responsible for the full
capital cost of all future capacity additions; the cost of future capacity is paid for by only the
entity needing the capacity. There are no PIF revenues included in this scenario and the
entity needing the capacity provides in cash, the funding requirements and the regional
Collaborative entity is not issuing debt as is the case under the Collaboration Scenario.
The findings are as follows:
• The financial analysis determined that there is total NPV benefit to RWCC of
approximately $76 million over the 30-year study period with the implementation of
the Collaboration Scenario, as opposed to the Status Quo Scenario (i.e., present
situation). Table 2 summarizes the regional and individual Net Present Value for
the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenario.
• A regional Collaboration Scenario has significant non-financial benefits as
summarized in Table 1.
• On an individual basis there is a positive benefit to two of the four RWCC members
to a regional Collaboration Scenario. There is an apparent benefit disparity for
ELCO and FCLWD under the Collaboration Scenario.
• Table 2 summarizes the Modified Collaboration Scenario NPV.
5
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
It must be noted that, under the Modified Collaboration Scenario, each entity is responsible
for providing the funding for capacity expansions or additions needed to meet its demand.
If debt funded, additional costs related to interest or the effect of reducing the NPV by
repaying principal over 20 year through debt service payments are not in the NPV analysis.
This is significant and makes it impossible to fully compare the NPV results under the
Modified Collaboration Scenario to the other two Scenarios.
Table 2 Net Present Value Cost Comparison ($1,000,000’s)
Entity
Status
Quo Collaboration
Difference
Between Status
Quo and
Collaboration
Modified
Collaboration
Difference
Between
Status Quo and
Modified
Collaboration
City $ 207.9 $ 109.4 $ 98.5 $ 141.2 66.7
ELCO 33.0 38.3 -5.3 48.3 -15.3
NWCWD 85.8 83.9 1.9 121.5 -35.7
FCLWD 106.3 125.6 -19.3 153.7 -47.4
Total $ 433.0 $ 357.2 $ 75.8 $ 464.7 -31.7
1.4 Recommendations
The Phase 2 data analysis illustrates that there is a significant regional benefit to
implementing the Collaboration Scenario. These benefits include both financial and non-
financial factors that would suggest that the Collaborative Scenario should be adopted.
What is at issue is the apparent inequity, between the four entities, of the combined
financial benefit of $76 million.
The challenge for RWCC is, “How should that benefit be shared?” The Project Team
believes this “sharing” can be determined in a number of different ways and RWCC can
develop the best method of making the benefits more equitable.
The Project Team recommends that RWCC move forward with further investigation of a
regional Collaboration Scenario by undertaking Phase 3 - Strategic Implementation
Development. Phase 3 provides an opportunity to develop and reach consensus on an
approach to the distribution of the estimated $76 million of regional benefits and moving to a
collaborative approach for the delivery of treated water to the Fort Collins & Tri-Districts
area.
The Phase 3 Technical Memorandum would be building on the Phase 2 Technical
Memorandum to develop with the RWCC a strategic implementation plan that would
6
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
provide the information to assist the RWCC members on the final decision of the merits of
the moving forward or not moving forward with the regional collaboration.
Building from the Phase 2 Technical Memorandum, it is recommended in the Phase 3
Technical Memorandum that a strategic implementation plan for consideration by the
RWCC members be prepared. Elements should include and address RWCC comments
raised in the Phase 2 deliberations including potential organization and staffing structures,
governance agreements, service agreements, management authority, as well as
implementation phase check list of activities and needed resources with a likely schedule.
This would be based on a framework that adheres to the RWCC ‘deal breaker’ list of
elements.
7
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
2. Introduction / Background
In August 2013 the City of Fort Collins (City) and the Tri-Districts (Fort-Collins – Loveland
Water District (FCLWD), North Weld County Water District (NWCWD), and the East
Larimer County Water District (ELCO)) decided to evaluate the potential merits of a regional
Collaboration Scenario as it relates to their drinking water treatment solutions. The City
currently owns and operates the 87 MGD Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility (Facility).
The Tri-Districts own and operate the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (SCFP) with a rated
capacity of 45 MGD serving lands both within the City boundary and lands in the general
vicinity of the City boundary including North Weld County Water District. The two treatment
plants are located in close proximity and draw from the same water sources.
It is estimated that there are total of about 41,227 water service connections within the City
boundaries of which about 30,074 (72.9%) are on the City distribution system, 8,587
(20.8%) are on the Fort Collins Loveland Water District, 2,566 (6.2%) are on the East
Larimer County Water District distribution system and there are no service connections
within the City boundaries on the North Weld County Water District distribution system.
The City and the Tri-Districts are members of the Regional Water Cooperation Committee
(RWCC2) and currently have water sharing agreements in place. They are exploring the
potential for some type of a regional water treatment Collaboration Scenario that may bring
a more efficient, long-term arrangement that will benefit their customers.
In order to further evaluate this opportunity, RWCC hired the ARCADIS Project Team
(Project Team) to assist with Phase 1 - Foundation of Regionalization Project and Phase 2 -
Financial Analysis of the project.
2.1 Phase 1 Scope of Work and Summary
Phase 1 of the Regional Water Treatment Solutions for the RWCC project established a
vision of potential collaboration plan for the committee members. Phase 1 also set clear
goals and expectations for this project through completion of the following tasks:
1. Prepared an Integrated Work Plan
2. Conducted Introductory Interviews with Stakeholders
3. Facilitated Workshop 1 on September 27, 2013
4. Prepared TM 1 summarizing the activities of Phase 1
2 Throughout this memorandum the City and the Tri-Districts are collectively referred to as “RWCC
members”, “participants”, “entities”, “entity’s” or individually as an “entity”.
8
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
TM 1 was submitted to RWCC on October 15, 2013. A list of Phase 1 outcomes is included
in Table 3.
Table 3 Phase 1 Highlight of Goals and Attributes of a Regional Collaboration Scenario
Category Goals and Attributes
Advantages The Facility has excess treatment capacity that is unlikely to be needed by the
City. The Collaboration Scenario may maximize the use of the existing assets
and deliver economic benefits to the broader region.
The Facility and the SCFP could be used in tandem to their full potential.
A regional Collaboration Scenario may result in a more positive influence than
the individual parties (e.g., attaining environmental and sustainability
objectives, regional planning).
Control &
Cost
Coordinating and planning, on a regional level is advantageous.
Evaluate existing assets: two options were discussed: 1) historical cost or 2)
replacement cost / current engineering design “unit” cost values, e.g., $/MG.
RWCC agreed that replacement cost / current engineering design for the
existing assets is more appropriate than historical cost.
All entities should pay the same rate.
Water
Quality
Participants acknowledged that there is an opportunity to coordinate on water
quality goals in the future (whether a formal Collaboration Scenario amongst
RWCC members occurs or not).
Important to continue collaboratively implementing watershed programs
between SCFP and the City.
Planning &
Operations
Either SCFP or the Facility could serve as a peaking plant.
Opportunities may exist to leverage City services such as engineering
planning and design, legal, health and safety, and human resources.
Any potential regional solutions should not influence water demand planning
for RWCC members
Sources of water and reliability of source that affects treatment should also be
considered.
Governance Negotiations and governance issues will continue to be deliberated if a
Collaboration Scenario moves forward regardless of the financial analysis or
recommendations.
Any regional entity should have bonding authority; this capability would be
essential. Alternatively, taxation capability would not be essential.
Phase 2 of the Regional Water Treatment Solutions for the Tri-Districts and City of Fort
Collins included an evaluation of the potential financial and non-financial implications for
RWCC members and stakeholders.
9
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Phase 2 included the following tasks summarized below and presented in detail in
subsequent sections.
2.2 Phase 2 Scope of Work
2.2.1 Task 2.1: Conduct Data Development and Analysis
Task 2.1 included developing a multi-year (30 years) financial planning analysis and tool in
Microsoft Excel to support the financial evaluation of the Status Quo and two Collaboration
Scenarios including key financial metrics, and a life-cycle cost analyses. This task
evaluated how merged assets could be valued and accounted for under Collaboration
including fair and equitable cost allocation approaches for wholesale and/or retail charges to
the RWCC members. Upon request, the RWCC provided the Project team with the asset
information needed to make an appropriate financial estimation of the value of the merged
assets. This effort assessed the value of the assets that each entity brings to a potential
regional Collaboration Scenario and provides a preliminary “balance sheet” reflecting the
credits (or debits) to each entity.
The Project Team, from discussions with RWCC, considered the following assumptions as
basis for the financial evaluation of two Collaborative scenarios:
• Level Playing Field: same rates for each RWCC
• Take or Pay Arrangement: subscription (fixed cost) for each RWCC member based
on committed or fixed portion of O&M and capital costs
• A 30-year window or study period
• The financial analysis is critical in the decision process going forward.
As part of the data analysis, the Project Team developed three case studies of shared
services for RWCC evaluation. RWCC identified the following organizational models for the
Project Team to evaluate:
1. Water Conservation District
2. Title 32 Special District
3. Title 29 Water Authority
RWCC also identified the following examples for case studies analysis:
1. Platte River Power Authority (Title 29)
2. South Metro Water Supply Authority (Title 29)
3. Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District (Title 32)
10
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
2.2.2 Task 2.2: Conduct Workshop 2 – Preliminary Findings Workshop
ARCADIS facilitated Workshop 2 with RWCC members and stakeholders on November 8,
2013, from 8:30 am to 1:00 pm. The workshop took place at the City Facility.
Workshop 2 objectives were to:
• Present and discuss the draft data analysis results. Present preliminary findings to
workshop participants prior to making formal recommendations.
• Present key governance options.
• Present case studies of shared services including how the services may be
structured, financed, and governed.
• Discuss key opportunities/constraints from different perspectives -- political,
economic/financial, social/ cultural, organizational framework, technical/operational,
governance/institutional, regulatory/legal, and environmental/sustainability.
• Identify remaining issues associated with the governance and finance options.
The discussion topics for the workshop were developed based on information obtained
through the financial and case study analysis and input from RWCC. The workshop key
agenda items were:
1. Demand Projection Review
2. Summary of Financial Analysis
3. Discussion of Non-Financial Analysis and Key Policies
4. Presentation of Organizational Model Case Studies
5. Summary and Discussion of Required Decision Information and Next Steps
A summary of the Workshop 2 discussion and presentation slides was submitted to RWCC
on December 12, 2013. A copy is also provided in Appendix A.
After issuing the draft TM 2 in December 2013, the Project Team and RWCC members met
on January 27, 2014 to review and discuss comments to the draft TM. The Project Team
agreed to update the Status Quo and Collaboration scenario analysis based on changes to
the underlying demand data, cost allocations and projections. A subsequent meeting was
held between Project Team and RWCC members on March 14, 2014 to finalize agreed
upon modifications to draft Phase 2 analysis. A summary of the January 27 and March 14,
2014 meetings were submitted to RWCC and are also provided in Appendix A. The Project
Team and RWCC members met on June 4, 2014 to review and confirm updated peak-day
and average annual demands provided by RWCC members, and to review allocations, and
the timing of expansions and new capacity.
11
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
The Project Team and RWCC members met to review updated results as discussed in
subsequent sections on July 18, 2014 under three scenarios:
• Status Quo
• Collaboration
• Modified Collaboration
2.2.3 Task 2.3: Prepare TM 2 - Summary of Phase 2 with Recommendations
TM 2 (this final report) summarizes the evaluations of Phase 2 with a focus on the financial
analysis.
12
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
3. Data Development and Analysis
The Project Team facilitated a working session with RWCC members and the Project Team
on October 21, 2013, to develop the basis of the financial analysis. The working meeting
was held at FCLWD offices. The methodology and scenarios used are included in the
Summary of Financial Analysis Results (Section 4) of this memorandum. Follow-up phone
calls and conference calls were conducted where necessary.
At the beginning of Phase 2, RWCC provided the Project Team with a list of “deal breakers”
that would prevent the development of a Collaborative solution. This list was reviewed with
RWCC at the working session on October 21, 2013 to confirm applicability to the data
development and analysis. The deal breakers include the following:
1. Any Collaboration Scenario requires equal representation: 1 entity = 1 vote.
2. Any regional solution can have no decision or say regarding the end use or
distribution of water.
3. There must be fair and equitable treatment of all staff.
4. There must be equitable financial representation of all assets that are brought to
the table.
5. All charters and other amendments of any regional solution must be made by
unanimous decisions by all parties.
6. There must be cost of service clarity (how are expansions to capacity, plant
improvements and regulatory issues allotted and paid for).
The following subsections present the methodology used to conduct the Phase 2 analysis.
3.1 Demand Projections
Demand projections were received from RWCC members as part of Phase 1 and were
subsequently reviewed and updated by RWCC members in April 2014. The updated
demand projections include both peak-day and annual demands and are summarized in
Table 4 and Appendix B and illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Each entity provided demand
projections through 2055 or their projected build-out, whichever was expected to come first.
The Project Team met with RWCC members on June 4, 2014 to review and confirm their
demand projections. Agreement on these numbers was essential as individual and
collective capacity needs were identified based on projected peak day demands.
Projections as provided by each entity reflect the customer type (e.g., residential,
commercial and agriculture) and water use characteristics of their service areas. No
13
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
attempt was made to standardize3 these projections across each of the four entities, e.g.,
demand per capita varied across each of the entities and is a reflection of the uniqueness of
the customer base for each entity. While these differences were noted by participants
during Workshop 2, no changes were made. Lastly, RWCC members reviewed the
relationship between peak-day demands to average daily demands revising the peaking
relationship over time, if such a change was consistent with entity specific master planning
analyses. Table 4 and Figures 1 and 2 contain this information for the entities. As
previously noted, these projections are critical to estimating the timing of future expansions
and capacity additions under the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios.
Table 4 Current and Projected Peak Day Water Demands
Organization
Approx.
Peak
Demands
in Last 5
Years
(MGD)
Projected
Peak Day
Demand in
30 Years
(MGD)
% of Total
Projected
Peak Day
Demand in
30 Years
Average
Annual
Demand in
Last 5
Years (MG)
Projected
Annual
Demand in
30 years
(MG)
% of Total
Annual
Demand in
30 Years
City of Fort Collins 46.77 63.80 36% 8,757 11,946 40%
ELCO 9.78 17.30 10% 1,466 3,135 11%
NWCWD 14.10 48.80 28% 2,497 8,640 29%
FCLWD 21.70 46.00 26% 2,755 5,840 20%
Total 92.35 175.90 100% 15,475 29,561 100%
3 Demand per capita or per residential equivalents
14
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Figure 1 Current and Projected Peak Day Water Demands
Figure 2 Current and Projected Annual Water Demands
15
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
3.2 Financial Analysis Model - eForecast
The Project Team used data received from the Tri-Districts and the City to populate a long-
term financial planning model, eForecast, an ARCADIS proprietary Excel-based financial
model. eForecast facilitates scenario analyses of different cost projections and allocations
to determine the costs per entity and the net present value of those costs.
3.3 Scenarios
The Project Team developed three possible financial scenarios during the development of
draft and updated findings in order to provide RWCC with options to compare.
1. Status Quo
2. Collaboration With PIF Funding
3. Modified Collaboration Without PIF and Debt Funding
The final analysis documented in this document was limited to the three possible financial
scenarios defined and discussed below. Additionally, various sensitivity analyses were
completed and these results are discussed in Section 4.4. While there may be a variety of
ways to assign future capacity costs to the entities under a Collaboration alternative, the
approach described herein is a reasonable approach to the allocation of costs and is very
similar to the current approach used by the Tri-Districts and the SCFP.
The Scenarios are summarized as follows:
1. Scenario 1 – Status Quo:
The Tri-Districts and City own and operate the two separate water treatment plants
based on current agreements. This scenario analyzes the projected financial
outcome if the Tri-Districts and City continue to operate as separate entities.
Current financial reports including Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expense
budgets and Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) were provided by the Tri-Districts
and the City. O&M and capital costs for the SCFP and the Facility are adjusted so
that the two plants treatment functions and costs can be compared between the
Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios.
With Scenario 1 – Status Quo, the SCFP is expanded to meet the projected
demands of the Tri-Districts with O&M, capital improvement and capital expansion
costs allocated based on the SCFP Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA). Under
this scenario, the City continues to operate the Facility separate from SCFP. This
16
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
scenario anticipates FCLWD purchasing, from the City, an additional 5 MGD in
2016 (in addition to the 5 MGD purchased from the City in 2013) and NWCWD
purchasing 5 MGD from the City (in 2018).
2. Scenario 2: Collaboration Scenario:
Under this scenario all O&M costs, minor capital and repair and replacement capital
costs are allocated based on relative projected annual demands while
expansionary capital costs are allocated based on relative projected annual peak-
day demands. A Plant Investment Fee (PIF) revenue stream was modeled as a
funding source for future water production expansion costs.
3. Scenario 3: Modified Collaboration Scenario:
This scenario is the same as Scenario 2 with significant differences regarding
allocation of capital funding requirements, use of PIF revenues and debt to fund
expansionary capital requirements. Under this scenario all capacity additions,
beyond the current132 MGD capacity of the two facilities is paid for by only the
entity needing the capacity. There are no PIF revenues included in this scenario
and the entity needing the capacity provides the capacity addition funding
requirements; unlike under Scenario 2, the Collaborative entity does not issue any
debt under this scenario.
Under the Collaboration Scenarios, a regional Collaboration entity is formed. Under
the Collaboration Scenarios, the Tri-Districts and City consolidate treatment plant
assets, and the Collaborative entity owns and operates the two water treatment
plants and is responsible for all expansions and future capacity additions. O&M
and capital costs for SCFP and the Facility are also adjusted for comparison
between the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios to reflect cost savings
resulting from the combined operations (total cost savings of 30% achieved in
equal increments over the first 10 years of combined operation. Future capital
facility expansions and additions are based on meeting the combined projected
maximum day water demands of the Tri-Districts and City.
17
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Under Scenarios 2 and 3 there will be buy-in4 costs where each entity might “buy
into” the combined capacity of the Collaborative entity based several capacity
alternatives. The alternative capacity buy in scenarios evaluated as part of Phase 2
and presented on November 8, 2013 are as follows:
• Equal treatment plant capacity – each entity is allocated 25% of the
Collaboration entity assets
• Allocated treatment plant capacity in 2029 – each entity’s allocated treatment
plant capacity is based on the 2029 projected peak-day demands for each
entity. This date reflects the estimated date, updated from Draft Phase 2
analysis to reflect the updated demand analysis, when the existing production
capacity of both plants (132 MGD) is needed to meet the total projected
maximum day water demands.
• Allocated treatment plant capacity in 2036 – each entity’s allocated treatment
plant capacity is based on the 2036 projected peak-day demands for each
entity or year prior to a projected Greenfield facility being added. This date,
updated from the draft Phase 2 analysis to reflect updated demand analysis,
represents the estimated date when the existing production capacity of both
plants (147 MGD) is needed to meet the projected maximum day water
demands.
Under any alternative the buy-in cost for an entity will be amortized over 20 years.
The draft and final Collaboration and Modified Collaboration Scenarios incorporate the
projected capacity values in 2029. Since consensus regarding the buy-in cost approach
was received during Workshop #2, the equal cost and allocated capacity based on 147
MGD were not updated or incorporated in the updated financial analysis completed in 2014.
4 For each entity a value was determined for their respective allocated treatment plant capacity in
either the SCFP or the Facility. This value was compared to the value of the allocated treatment plant
capacity in the combined or collaborative facilities. As a result, an entity may have a deficit that is
owed to the Collaboration entity; owed to any entities with a surplus or a surplus where the
Collaboration entity or any entities with a deficit owes the entity having the surplus.
18
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
3.4 Analysis and Comparison
The methodology used to calculate and compare the costs from Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 is
summarized in the following steps:
1. Projected peak day and annual water demands through 2055, as discussed in
Section 3.1, were used to evaluate the timing of plant expansions and were used
allocate costs to each entity.
2. The Project Team worked with RWCC to value the Facility and SCFP. All parties
agreed to use the same unit cost of $2.33 per MG to value both plants. In addition
to assigning a value to the plants, the Project Team identified the treatment plant
capacity percentages of the combined plants under the Scenario 1 (Status Quo
Scenario) and the Scenarios 2 (Collaboration Scenario) and 3 (Modified
Collaboration Scenario) over the study period (30 years). The allocated treatment
plant capacity percentages for the combined plants are based on peak day demand
projections (from Table 4 in Section 3.2.1).
3. O&M treatment plant expense budgets were provided by the City for the Facility
(2013) and by the Tri-Districts for the SCFP (2014). The O&M cost categories did
not align exactly between the two entities. In order for the O&M budgets to be more
comparable, the following adjustments were made:
• Water Resources and Source of Supply costs were removed from the
SCFP O&M
• Legal, Lab, IT, Safety, and other miscellaneous costs were added to the
Facility O&M
• Additional costs of $709,046 for City in 2013 were added to Facility O&M.
These costs reflect indirect charges for indirect management, financial and
other services provided by the General Fund, which are included, but not
included in the Facility operating budget.
4. The City also provided their CIP for the Facility, principally related to improvements
needed to address possible water quality regulations. These regulatory projects
include a Granular Active Carbon Filtration and Disinfection System in 2026 at an
estimated cost of $46 million or $0.52 million per MG, adjusted for annual inflation,
based on the Facility capacity of 87 MGD.
5. The Project Team developed a 30-year CIP for SCFP based on previous
discussions with members of the Tri-Districts. In a manner similar to the City, the
CIP included possible projects that may be needed to address possible water
quality regulatory changes, e.g., GAC (scaled to the 60 MGD SCFP capacity).
O&M expenses, minor capital and R&R capital expenditures were then allocated to
each entity based on relative annual demand values. Expansionary capital costs
were then allocated based on the relative peak day demand values.
19
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
6. Annual O&M, capital, and debt service costs were calculated for each entity over
the 30-year study period (2015 – 2045). The costs were offset by PIF revenues
received in each year and/or in the case of the City Buy-In revenue under the
Collaboration Scenario.
a. For example, in the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios total
expansionary capital project costs adjusted for inflation are reduced by
the accumulated and available PIF revenue balance in arriving at the
net CIP to be debt financed. The annual stream of net O&M, minor and
R&R capital and expansionary capital debt service costs were then
used to calculate the NPV of costs.
b. Under the Modified Collaboration Scenario, PIF revenues are not
incorporated as a reduction to capital costs and capital costs reflect
cash provided by each of the four entities that does not include debt-
related costs or debt service, if any.
c. The NPV shows the value of future dollars in today’s dollars using a
discount rate of 5%. The discount rate considers the uncertainty of
future cash flows and as used within the scenario analysis, the cost of
debt. The NPV results are then used to compare each scenario in
order to determine the least cost alternative.
It must be noted that since, under the Modified Collaboration Scenario, each entity is
responsible for providing the funding for capacity expansions or additions needed to meet
its specific demand. As such, these costs (the capital funding costs if debt funded, e.g.,
debt service) are not in the NPV analysis. This is significant and makes it impossible to
compare the NPV results under the Modified Collaboration Scenario to the other two
Scenarios.
Scenarios 1 and 2 and the methodology described above were analyzed and presented at
Workshop 2. The results and discussion are included in the Workshop 2 Summary
(Appendix A). Based on the preliminary results, Workshop participants agreed that, of the
scenarios discussed, the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios are the two most realistic
scenarios to compare (long term). A third scenario, Modified Collaboration, was
subsequently added through discussions with RWCC members in January 27, 2014 and
presented during a July 18, 2014 meeting.
1. Status Quo Scenario with PIFs
2. Collaboration Scenario – PIFs included as capital cost offset and all future capacity
needs are shared by four entities.
3. Modified Collaboration Scenario – Expansionary capital requirements are allocated
based on relative incremental peak-day demands of each entity. Debt is not
evaluated as each entity and PIF revenues are not evaluated as an offset to capital
20
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
requirements; each entity provides cash funding for allocated expansionary capital
requirements.
Additionally, the following adjustments were made to the scenario results presented at
Workshop 2 and summarized within the draft TM 2:
• PIF revenues were adjusted so that they directly offset eligible capital costs prior to
issuing debt.
• O&M efficiency factor was increased from 20% to 30% of the combined O&M
expenses (applies only to the Collaboration scenarios). Workshop participants
agreed that 30% was more realistic.
• Asset value was reduced from $2.52 per gallon per day to $2.33 per gallon per day
to recognize future Facility regulatory projects (e.g., GAC) already accounted for
within the CIP.
• Ownership of the combined facilities was based on peak-day demand in 2028, but
was adjusted to peak-day demand in 2024. This reflects the year when the current
combined facilities capacity (132 MGD) is exceeded. The entities share in the
costs to expand the SCFP and increase the combined facilities capacity to 147
MGD.
Finally, the following additional adjustments were made to the scenario results summarized
within the draft Technical Memorandum 2 based on January 27, 2014 and at the March 14,
2014 meeting with the Project Team and RWCC members:
• Updated peak-day capacity requirements for all four entities affecting the:
o Timing and amount of capacity purchases and treatment plant expansions
o Annual PIF revenues projected based on peak-day capacity requirements
o Buy-in amount under the Collaboration and Modified Collaboration
Scenarios
• Annual O&M, minor and R&R capital expenses allocated among the entities based
on relative projected annual demands.
• O&M efficiency factor of 30% phased over 10 years rather than taking effect fully in
the first year.
• Projected annual O&M expenses under the Status Quo Scenario resulting from
FCLWD and NWCWD purchases from the City were updated to reflect peak day
purchases during a 60-day peak season based on discussions with FCLWD
representatives. Additionally, the O&M related to City purchases are expenses to
the entity purchasing capacity, but excluded from the projected Facility O&M
expenses.
21
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
4. Financial Analysis Results
4.1 Key Assumptions for Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios
The following key assumptions are incorporated into the cost calculations for the Status
Quo, Collaboration and Modified Collaboration Scenarios:
1. The discount rate used to calculate NPV is 5%.
2. CIP inflation is assumed to be 3% per year (representing the average change
in Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index over the last 30
years).
3. O&M inflation is 4% per year, which consists of 3% general or ENR inflation
and 1% growth (to account for flow based increases in demand independent of
capacity additions).
4. Additional O&M expenses are added when either the Facility or SCFP is
expanded based on the proportional peak-day capacity of expansion to current
peak-day capacity.
5. SCFP-related O&M, minor and R&R capital costs are allocated among the Tri-
Districts based on relative annual demands. SCFP-related expansionary
capital is allocated among the Tri-Districts based on relative peak-day
demands in the year before the next expansion.
6. For only the Status Quo Scenario, O&M expenses resulting from City
purchases for peak-day requirements are projected over a 60-day peak-day
period and included in FCLWD and NWCWD projected O&M expense, but
excluded from the projected Facility O&M expense.
7. Annual debt service payments for future bond issues are based on a 20-year
repayment term and 5% annual interest rate, and include 2% issuance cost
and establishment of a debt service reserve equal to one-year of debt service;
the debt service reserve is funded from the proceeds of the debt issue.
8. The PIF for all entities is estimated at $2.33 per gallon per day until SCFP
reaches capacity and thereafter at $3.50 per gallon per day. Both values are
adjusted for 3% annual CIP inflation.
9. For only the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios, PIF revenues are
projected based on annual increases in peak-day demand. PIF revenues are
used to offset expansion capital costs and if any excess PIF revenue remains it
is used to offset debt service.
4.1.1 Plant Investment Fee Revenues (PIF)
PIF Revenues are incorporated in the only the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios as
a source for upfront funding for expansionary capital as well as source for debt service
22
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
payments when excess funds are available. Appendix D summarizes the projected PIF
revenues and use of PIF funds by each entity under the Status Quo and the RWCC Entity
under the Collaboration Scenario. PIF revenues are not incorporated within the Modified
Collaboration Scenario.
PIF revenues are projected based on increases in each entity peak-day capacity demands
applied to the plant capacity cost per MGD. The treatment plant capacity per MGD of
$2.33, adjusted for annual inflation, is used until a Greenfield plant is projected to be
required and then at a treatment plant capacity cost of $3.50 per gallon per day, adjusted
for annual inflation. Under the Status Quo Scenario, PIF revenues are separately tracked
for each entity while under the Collaboration Scenario, PIF revenues are tracked for the
RWCC collaboration entity. PIF revenues are accumulated and may be used to offset the
capital costs, funded through debt issues, of remaining expansionary capital expenses. If
accumulated PIF revenues are available after evaluating allocated capital costs of plant
expansions, the PIF revenues are used to pay annual debt service.
4.2 Scenario Analysis and Results
4.2.1 Scenario 1 - Status Quo
Under Status Quo Scenario there are no changes in ownership or operation of the two
treatment plants – the current manner in which costs are incurred (and the responsibility for
payment of those costs) to operate the Facility and the SCFP is maintained.
4.2.1.1 Additional Assumptions for Status Quo Scenario
In addition to the assumptions listed in Section 4.1, the following assumptions were used for
the Status Quo Scenario:
• The sale of capacity in the Facility (to FCLWD and NWCWD) is based on an
upfront payment of 20% of total amount. The remaining 80% is debt financed over
a 20-year repayment term and 5% annual interest rate.
• City capacity sales under Status Quo are estimated for FCLWD and NWCWD
before expanding SCFP as summarized in Table 5.
• Timing of SCFP and allocation of capacity to each entity is summarized in Table 5.
• Additional capacity purchases are needed for each of the Tri-Districts after the
expanded SCFP reaches capacity in 2021. The capacity purchase cost is $3.50 per
gallon per day, adjusted for inflation. The $3.50 represents the estimated cost per
gallon per day of a new facility. The estimated capacity needs are summarized in
Table 5.
23
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Table 5 Capacity Expansions (MGD) Summary
Year FCLWD ELCO NWCWD Total Source
2016 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 purchase from City
2018 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 purchase from City
2021 7.6 2.2 5.2 15.0 SCFP Expansion
2024 8.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 Greenfield
2035 3.0 1.0 6.0 10.0 Greenfield
2042 0.0 1.0 9.0 10.0 Greenfield
2050 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.0 Greenfield
Total 23.6 6.2 33.2 63.0
4.2.1.2 Annual Costs for Status Quo Scenario
O&M expenses were provided by the City for the Facility and by the Tri-Districts for SCFP.
Adjustments were made to the Facility budget to include legal, lab, and other miscellaneous
costs that are included in the SCFP budget. The Facility 2013 budget was then inflated to
2014 dollars for the analysis. Table 6 summarizes the Facility 2013 O&M expenses.
Table 6 Status Quo Scenario - 2013 Facility O&M
Item 2013 Adjustments 2013 Adjusted
Personnel (excl. Admin) $2,200,000 $0 $2,200,000
Chemicals 1,198,000 0 1,198,000
Energy 415,000 0 415,000
Administrative 288,000 0 288,000
Legal 0 52,000 52,000
Lab 0 38,000 38,000
Water Resources 0 0 0
Source of Supply 0 0 0
All Other 804,000 710,000 1,514,000
Minor Capital 1,551,000 0 1,551,000
Total $6,456,000 $800,000 $7,256,000
24
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
The Tri-Districts provided 2014 SCFP operating costs. In order to compare, and in an
alternate scenario combine, the water resource and source of supply costs were removed
from the SCFP budget. Table 7 summarizes the 2014 SCFP O&M.
Table 7 Status Quo Scenario - 2014 SCFP O&M
Item 2014 Adjustments 2014 Adjusted
Personnel (excl. Admin) $1,263,000 $ 0 $1,263,000
Chemicals 825,000 0 825,000
Energy 119,000 0 119,000
Administrative 463,000 0 463,000
Legal 63,000 0 63,000
Lab 50,000 0 50,000
Water Resources 323,000 (323,000) 0
Source of Supply 230,000 (230,000) 0
All Other 291,000 0 291,000
Minor Capital 495,000 0 495,000
Total $4,123,000 ($553,000) $3,570,000
The City provided a 30-year CIP that is included in the financial analysis with costs
summarized in uninflated dollars. Major planned projects include installation of GAC
Filtration ($46.0 million), a Disinfection System ($10.9 million), a Chlorine Contact Basin
($10.7 million), and an annual replacement program (replacement of old or damaged pipes,
meters, and other infrastructure) for 2015 through 2019 as provided by the City that
averages $1.9 million per year. Starting in 2020, the annual replacement program assumes
$1.5 million per year. All CIP projects are inflated to year of expenditure at 3% per year.
The Tri-Districts provided a 2014 repair and replacement plan that the Project Team used to
project study period repair and replacement costs of $0.5 million annually. The Team also
added SFCP expansion costs calculated by the Project Team and regulatory projects that
are comparable to the regulatory projects contained in the Facility’s CIP. These
comparable projects include Disinfection system and GAC Filtration added and adjusted
based on the proportional peak-day capacity of the SCFP.
SCFP R&R CIP costs are allocated to the Tri-Districts based on projected annual demand
each year of the study period. SCFP expansionary CIP costs are initially allocated to the
Tri-Districts based asset allocations in 2013 and reallocated before the 15 MGD plant
expansion projected in 2021 based on proportional peak-day demand when the expanded
25
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
60 MGD SCFP reaches capacity. Additional capacity needs beyond SCFP 60 MGD
provided through Greenfield treatment plant(s) are projected in minimum 10 MGD
increments (with the exception of the final expansion in 2050) and funded based on
proportional peak-day requirements of the entities requiring the additional capacity.
Table 8 summarizes the CIP totals per year for SCFP and the Facility. Totals are prior to
inflation, rounded to the nearest $100,000 and include PIF revenue adjustments or
reductions, but prior to issuance of debt.
Table 8 Status Quo Scenario - Facilities and SCFP Capital Improvement Plan Costs1
Treatment
Plant 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2045
SCFP
FCLWD $ 600,000 $7,200,0002 $ 500,000 $ 1,300,000 $1,400,000 $ 200,000 $ 29,900,000
ELCO3 300,000 100,000 200,000 600,000 600,000 2,800,000 10,000,000
NWCWD 500,000 200,000 400,000 8,000,0002 1,100,000 5,000,000 26,400,000
SCFP Total 1,400,000 7,500,000 1,100,000 9,900,000 3,100,000 8,000,000 66,300,000
Facility 12,000,000 8,900,000 11,600,000 5,300,000 6,200,000 2,600,000 83,500,000
Total $13,400,000 $16,400,000 $12,700,000 $15,200,000 $9,300,000 $10,600,000 $149,700,000
1 The CIP cost is cash funded capital after reductions for PIF revenues.
2 The CIP under the Status Quo Scenario assumes FCLWD and NWCWD purchase 5 MGD in 2016 and 2018 respectively.
3 ELCO is growing slower and has less PIF revenue/accumulated cash. As a consequence, more of ELCO’s capital will be debt
funded opposed to FCLWD and NWCWD, especially in the early years of the study period.
4.2.1.3 Net Present Value for Status Quo Scenario
The NPV for each entity was calculated using net costs from 2015 – 2045. Table 9 shows
the total study period cost and net present value for each entity.
26
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Table 9 Status Quo Scenario - 2015 – 2045 Costs and Net Present Value
Entity
Costs1
(2015-2045)
Net Present
Value1
FCLWD $233,600,000 $106,300,000
ELCO 76,000,000 33,000,000
NWCWD 203,600,000 85,800,000
CITY 482,800,000 207,900,000
Total $996,000,000 $433,000,000
1 Includes R&R CIP, expansionary CIP related capacity reduced for PIF revenues
amortized as annual debt service, and operating costs.
4.2.2 Scenario 2 - Collaboration
Under the Collaboration Scenario all O&M, capital expansion, and capital improvement
costs are shared by each of the four entities. O&M, minor capital and R&R capital
improvements are allocated amongst the entities based on relative annual demands.
Expansionary capital costs are allocated amongst the entities based on relative peak day
demand values.
4.2.2.1 Additional Assumptions for Collaboration Scenario
Collaboration costs are based on numerous assumptions. Changes in these assumptions
could have a material effect on the findings. The following key assumptions are
incorporated into the cost calculations:
• O&M, minor capital and R&R capital improvements expenses are allocated based
on each entity’s proportional annual demands as summarized in Appendix D. O&M
and minor capital expenses are increased proportionally when the SCFP and/or
Greenfield plant expansions are projected.
• Expansionary capital improvement expenses are allocated based on each entity’s
projected proportional peak-day demands in the year prior to the next expansion or
when the expanded capacity is fully used. The allocation is based on peak-day
requirements of each entity after the initial capacity Buy-in reallocates Collaboration
entity treatment plant capacity amongst the four entities. The cost allocations are
updated for funding when the collaborative Facility and SCFP are projected to be
expanded as summarized in Table 10.
• Projected PIF revenues are accumulated by the Collaboration entity and used to
offset expansionary capital costs and if any excess PIF revenue remains it is used
to offset Collaboration entity debt service.
27
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
• Efficiency factor applied to combined O&M is 30% and is phased over 10 years at
3% per year. The efficiency factor reflects estimated cost savings as a result of
combining the operations of both facilities and being able to reduce redundancies
and achieve economies of scale.
• Future bond issues have a 20-year repayment term and 5% annual interest rate,
and include 2% issuance cost and one year debt service reserve (established from
the proceeds of the bond issue).
• Buy-in costs are debt financed only by the Collaborative entity; the cost is assessed
to for a 20-year repayment term and 5% annual interest rate.
• The Facility and SCFP are both valued at $2.33 per gallon per day of existing
capacity. In 2013 the City sold 5 MGD of the Facility’s 87 MGD capacity to FCLWD
at $2.52 per gallon per day. The unit value of $2.33 per gallon per day is based on
the current City PIF ($2.52), minus the regulatory CIP component included in the
projected Facility CIP ($0.19), so as not to double count for planned capital
projects. Table 11 summarizes the combined existing capacity and plant values
under the Collaboration Scenario.
Table 10 Collaboration Expansions (MGD) Summary
Year FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City Total Source
2030 4.8 1.4 5.5 3.3 15.0 SCFP Expansion
2037 2.3 1.0 5.2 1.5 10.0 Greenfield
2043 0.0 1.2 7.6 1.2 10.0 Greenfield
2050 -0.2 1.0 7.8 0.4 9.0 Greenfield
Total 6.9 4.6 26.1 6.4 44.0
Table 11 Collaboration Scenario - Dedicated Plant Value
Entity
Peak-Day
Capacity
MGD
$/gallon per
day Value
City 82.00 $2.33 $191,060,000
FCLWD1 5.00 $2.33 11,650,000
SCFP 45.00 $2.33 104,850,000
Total 132.00 $2.33 $307,560,000
1 In 2013 the City sold 5 MGD of capacity to FCLWD.
28
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
• The collaborative plant ownership is calculated in the following three steps and
summarized in Table 12:
1. Allocate dedicated SCFP value to each of the Tri-Districts. This allocation was
provided by the Tri-Districts and based on SCFP asset allocation at 45 MGD.
FCLWD combines its SCFP value to the 5 MGD capacity purchase from the
City (in 2013).
2. Calculate treatment plant allocations of combined facilities. Ownership of the
combined facilities is based on peak-day demand in 2029. This reflects the
year when the current combined facilities capacity (132 MGD) is exceeded.
The entities share in the costs to expand the SCFP by 15 MGD and increase
the combined facilities capacity to 147 MGD.
3. Determine the amount owed or due to each entity. Subtracting the value of the
collaborative facilities per entity from the dedicated plan value per entity.
Table 12 Collaboration Scenario 2 and Modified Collaboration Scenario 3 - Plant
Allocation and Buy-In Value
FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City Total
Dedicated Plant Value $52,813,000 $27,183,000 $36,503,000 $191,060,000 $307,560,000
Value Per Entity 91,226,251 29,685,013 52,922,335 133,726,401
Amount (Owed) / Due ($38,413,000) ($2,502,000) ($16,419,000) $57,333,000 $307,560,000
SCFP Allocation 39.26% 25.93% 34.81% 0.00% 100.00%
Allocation based on
demand % at 132 MGD 29.66% 9.65% 17.21% 43.48% 100.00%
The resulting Buy-In costs reflect the “132 MGD” alternative as previously discussed and
are amortized starting in 2015 over 20 years with an assumed 5% interest rate.
4.2.2.2 Annual Costs for Collaboration
The combined 2014 budget is calculated by inflating the City’s adjusted 2013 budget to
2014 dollars and adding that value to SCFP’s 2014 budget. All expense items in the
combined budget is then inflated at 4% per year and then reduced by the cumulative annual
efficiency factor. Following Workshop 2, the City provided 30% as a reasonable efficiency
factor if both facilities are combined. The efficiency factor of 30% is phased over 10 years in
equal 3% increments starting in 2015 and fully phased in place by 2024. The annual
combined and allocated Facility O&M expenses are summarized in Appendix C. Sensitivity
analyses regarding the O&M efficiency factor are presented in Section 4.4.
29
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
All collaborative R&R CIP costs are shared by the four entities based on each entities
relative annual demands. All collaborative expansionary CIP costs are shared by the four
entities based on relative peak-day capacity demands. Table 13 summarizes the
Collaboration Scenario CIP costs by entity.
Table 13 Collaboration Scenario 2 - Capital Improvement Plan
Entity 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2045
FCLWD $41,000,0001 $1,800,000 $ 2,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,900,000 $ 700,000 $ 28,800,000
ELCO 3,800,0001 900,000 1,200,000 800,000 900,000 300,000 12,700,000
NWCWD 18,600,0001 1,600,000 2,100,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 500,000 23,600,000
City 7,400,000 5,100,000 6,800,000 4,400,000 4,900,000 1,600,000 62,700,000
Total $70,800,000 $9,400,000 $12,600,000 $8,300,000 $9,200,000 $3,100,000 $127,800,000
1 Includes buy-in costs for asset allocations in 2015 before amortization. Costs reflect net costs before
PIF adjustments and debt funding.
4.2.2.3 Net Present Value for Collaboration
Table 14 illustrates the total costs during the study period and net present value for each
entity.
Table 14 Collaboration Scenario 2 - 2015 – 2045 Costs and Net Present Value
Entity
Costs1
(2015-2045)
Net Present
Value1
FCLWD $247,500,000 $125,600,000
ELCO 82,500,000 38,300,000
NWCWD 180,200,000 83,900,000
City 257,900,000 109,400,000
Total $768,100,000 $357,200,000
1 Includes net R&R and expansionary CIP after PIF adjustments, annual debt service and
operating costs.
4.2.3 Scenario 3 – Modified Collaboration
Under the Modified Collaboration Scenario all O&M and capital improvement costs are
shared by each of the four entities while expansionary capital costs are allocated to the
entity needing the capacity. O&M, minor capital and R&R capital improvements are
allocated amongst the entities based on each entity’s proportional annual demands.
30
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Expansionary capital costs are allocated amongst the entities based on relative peak day
demand values and incremental demand requirements of each entity.
4.2.3.1 Additional Assumptions for Collaboration Scenario
Modified Collaboration costs are based on numerous assumptions consistent with the
Collaboration Scenario. Changes in these assumptions could have a material effect on the
findings. The following key assumptions are incorporated into the cost calculations:
• Same Buy-in costs, O&M, minor capital and R&R capital improvements as well as
the timing and cost of the plant expansions as incorporated within the
Collaboration scenario
• O&M, minor capital and R&R capital improvements expenses are allocated based
on each entity’s proportional annual demands as summarized in Appendix D. O&M
and minor capital expenses are increased proportionally when the SCFP is
expanded, and/or Greenfield plant capacity additions are projected.
• Expansionary capital improvement expenses are allocated based on projected
peak-day demands in the year prior to the next expansion or when the expanded
capacity is fully used. The allocation summarized on Table 15 is based on the
incremental peak-day requirements of each entity associated with each individual
expansion, after the initial capacity Buy-in reallocates Collaboration entity treatment
plant capacity amongst the four entities.
• Projected PIF revenues are not incorporated in the financial analysis nor used to
offset expansionary capital costs.
• Debt funding and/or resulting debt service and interest costs are not factored into
the analysis as the Modified Collaboration scenario assumes each entity provides
cash to the Collaboration entity at the time of improvement. The analysis makes no
determination as to the source of the funding as provided by the entity nor does the
analysis incorporate this cost into the NPV calculation.
Table 15 Collaboration Expansions (MGD) Summary
Year FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City Total Source
2030 4.9 1.4 5.8 2.9 15.0 SCFP Expansion
2037 1.8 1.1 5.4 1.7 10.0 Greenfield
2043 0.0 1.2 7.6 1.2 10.0 Greenfield
2050 0.0 1.0 7.5 0.5 9.0 Greenfield
Total 6.7 4.7 26.3 6.3 44.0
31
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
4.2.3.2 Annual Costs for Modified Collaboration
The same cost information is used for the Collaboration and Modified Collaboration
scenarios as previously discussed with small differences attributed to rounding.
All collaborative R&R CIP costs are shared by the four entities based on each entity relative
annual demands. All collaborative expansionary CIP costs are shared by the four entities
based on relative peak day capacity demands. Table 16 summarizes the Modified
Collaboration Scenario CIP costs by entity.
Table 16 Modified Collaboration Scenario 3 - Capital Improvement Plan
Entity 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2045
FCLWD $41,800,0001 $2,400,000 $ 3,300,000 $2,200,000 $2,500,000 $ 900,000 $ 44,400,000
ELCO 3,900,0001 1,000,000 1,300,000 800,000 900,000 300,000 22,200,000
NWCWD 18,500,0001 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 500,000 75,300,000
City 6,600,000 4,600,000 6,100,000 3,900,000 4,400,000 1,500,000 69,500,000
Total $70,800,000 $9,500,000 $12,700,000 $8,200,000 $9,200,000 $3,200,000 $211,400,000
1 Includes buy-in costs for asset ownership in 2015 before amortization. Costs reflect do not incorporate PIF
revenues and assumes no debt funding.
4.2.3.3 Net Present Value for Collaboration
Table 17 illustrates the total costs during the study period and net present value for each
entity. Again, it must be noted that the values shown on Table 17 do not reflect the capital
funding cost (interest on debt borrowing and timing of principal repayments and PIF
revenues funding capital costs or available for repayment of debt service) that would be
incurred by each entity participating in the capacity additions over the 30-year study period.
As such, it is inappropriate to make any comparison of results of the Modified Collaboration
scenario to the other two scenarios.
32
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Table 17 Modified Collaboration Scenario – 2015 - 2045 Costs and Net Present Value
Entity
Costs1
(2015-2045)
Net Present
Value1
FCLWD $ 303,400,000 $153,700,000
ELCO 108,200,000 48,300,000
NWCWD 297,100,000 121,500,000
City 326,900,000 141,200,000
Total $1,035,600,000 $464,700,000
1 Includes total R&R and expansionary CIP cash funded capital, annual debt service
related to Buy-In costs only and O&M and minor capital costs.
4.3 Comparison of Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios NPV Costs
Once the Status Quo, Collaboration and Modified Collaboration Scenarios were complete,
the NPV of each scenario was compared. As stated earlier, the lead driver of potential
collaboration is what the financial benefit is for the individual entity and collaboration as a
whole. The NPV comparison of the Status Quo, Collaboration and Modified Collaboration
Scenarios are summarized in Table 18.
Table 18 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo, Collaboration and Modified
Collaboration Scenarios ($1,000,000’s)
Entity
Status
Quo Collaboration
Difference
Between Status
Quo and
Collaboration
Modified
Collaboration
Difference
Between
Status Quo and
Modified
Collaboration
City $ 207.9 $ 109.4 $ 98.5 $ 141.2 66.7
ELCO 33.0 38.3 -5.3 48.3 -15.3
NWCWD 85.8 83.9 1.9 121.5 -35.7
FCLWD 106.3 125.6 -19.3 153.7 -47.4
Total $ 433.0 $ 357.2 $ 75.8 $ 464.7 -31.7
The comparison in Table 18 of the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios illustrate the
following results:
• The Collaboration scenario produces $76 million of NPV savings to the combined
service area over the 30-year study period.
33
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
• There is an apparent benefit disparity for ELCO and FCLWD under the
Collaboration Scenario. This is due to assumptions made in the model:
o Status Quo Scenario – Expansion of SCFP occurs earlier and at a lower
inflation adjusted cost ($1.33 per MGD) compared to the cost of capacity
purchased through the Buy-In fee ($2.33 per MGD) and compared to the
timing of the SCFP within the Collaboration and Modified Collaboration.
o Consolidation – Capacity of the Facility ($2.33 per MGD) is used first and
expansion of SCFP occurs later and at a higher inflation adjusted cost
expanding SCFP to 60 MGD compared to the timing and costs under the
Status Quo Scenario.
o O&M expenses are higher under the Collaboration Scenario for all of the
Tri-Districts because they are sharing in the Facility’s higher O&M budget
and participating in the costs of Facility R&R CIP improvements.
The value of the dedicated treatment plant assets of $2.33 per MGD affects the Buy-In
costs for the Tri-Districts. A sensitivity analysis was completed to see if the “negative” NPV
difference between the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios for FCLWD and ELCO
may be eliminated by adjusting the upfront value of the plant for the Buy-In calculation. A
dedicated treatment plant asset value of $1.15 per MGD results in a NPV of approximately
$0 between the Status Quo and Collaboration for FCLWD while the resulting NPV
difference for ELCO is - $4.0 million, NWCWD is $10.5 million and the City is $69.4M. The
NPV difference between the two scenarios for ELCO is “negative” using any value for the
dedicated treatment plant assets, as at $0.01 per MGD; the NPV difference for ELCO is
approximately - $2.8 million.
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses were completed for the Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios
regarding the following assumptions and outcomes of the change to assumptions:
• Efficiency factor phased more quickly over 5 years instead of 10 years
o Reduced O&M costs with faster phasing of O&M efficiencies
• Efficiency factor of 10%, rather than 30%, phased over 10 years
o Increased O&M costs with 20% lower overall efficiency factor
• Efficiency factor of 20%, rather than 30%, phased over 10 years
o Increased O&M costs with 10% lower overall efficiency factor
34
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
• $5.00 per MGD (uninflated) Greenfield plant cost rather than $3.50 per MGD
(uninflated)
o Decreased NPV as cost for Greenfield Plant CIP expansions and the
basis for PIF revenues are both increased. Net costs after PIF
revenue adjustment are lower resulting in reduced overall NPV under
both Status Quo and Collaboration Scenarios.
• 3.0% discount factor for NPV calculations based on capital cost inflation rather
than 5.0% discount factor based on the interest cost of debt
o Increased NPV as the costs are discounted by a lower factor. The
NPV difference compared to the base case Status Quo and
Collaboration Scenarios varies for each entity as the timing of costs
subject to the NPV over the 30 year study period varies.
The sensitivity analysis related to O&M cost efficiency factor phasing and efficiency
factor percent apply only to the Collaboration Scenario results, i.e., there are no
efficiencies associated with the Status Quo Scenario. Tables 19 through 21 summarize
the NPV for each sensitivity analysis compared to the base case.
Table 19 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo, Collaboration and
Efficiency Factor Collaboration Scenario Sensitivity Analysis
Entity
Base Case -
Status Quo
Base Case -
Collaboration
5 Year Phase -
Collaboration
10% Eff. Factor -
Collaboration
20% Eff. Factor -
Collaboration
City $207,891,977 $109,418,173 $105,399,000 $131,552,080 $120,021,035
ELCO $32,972,374 38,286,665 37,543,547 42,925,451 40,507,576
NWCWD $85,840,651 83,878,979 82,576,633 92,884,960 88,189,047
FCLWD 106,253,401 125,598,878 123,996,001 135,906,419 130,533,223
Total $432,958,404 $357,182,695 $349,515,181 $403,268,910 $379,250,881
35
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Table 20 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo and Collaboration
Scenarios under Base Case and $5.00 Greenfield Plant Sensitivity
Entity
Base Case -
Status Quo
Base Case -
Collaboration
$5 Greenfield -
Status Quo
$5 Greenfield -
Collaboration
City $207,891,977 $109,418,173 $194,693,955 $ 96,615,601
ELCO 32,972,374 38,286,665 32,475,331 35,776,647
NWCWD 85,840,651 83,878,979 85,840,651 79,374,111
FCLWD 106,253,401 125,598,878 105,035,497 119,812,534
Total $432,958,404 $357,182,695 $418,045,434 $331,578,893
Table 21 Net Present Value Cost Comparison of Status Quo and Collaboration
Scenarios under Base Case and 3% Discount Factor Sensitivity
Entity
Base Case -
Status Quo
Base Case -
Collaboration
3% Discount -
Status Quo
3% Discount -
Collaboration
City $207,891,977 $109,418,173 $282,541,045 $149,428,074
ELCO 32,972,374 38,286,665 44,906,836 50,556,285
NWCWD 85,840,651 83,878,979 118,233,489 110,655,080
FCLWD 106,253,401 125,598,878 141,787,368 160,621,094
Total $432,958,404 $357,182,695 $587,468,738 $471,260,533
36
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
5. Summary of Non-Financial Analysis Results
5.1 Non-Financial Attributes
While it is understood that the financial benefits are a significant driver of developing a
regional solution, there are also important non-financial attributes. Table 22 contains a
list that the Workshop 2 participants agreed are non-financial benefits of a regional
solution.
Table 22 Non-Financial Benefits of Developing a Regional Approach
Non-Financial Attributes
1 Each entity’s historical investment is recognized.
2 There is an opportunity to maximize the current treatment plant capital
investments estimated to be $ 192 million for the City of Fort Collins and $115
million for the Tri-Districts.
3 A regional entity will collaboratively identify and plan for the Fort Collins and Tri-
Districts area future water capacity needs (> 30 years).
4 A regional collaboration will leverage collective bonding authority for infrastructure
improvements.
5 A regional collaboration will send a positive signal to both the customers and Fort
Collins and Tri-Districts area business community.
6 Equal governance representation of the four entities (one entity one vote) will be
ensured in the management and operation of the treatment plants. The likely
alternative to access the available excess production at the City’s water treatment
plant is become a customer of the City of Fort Collins without the benefits
afforded by regional collaboration.
7 Each entity will retain individual planning control within their service area but will
share regional Fort Collins and Tri-Districts area planning information to make
cost effective long term (> 30 year) treatment plant improvement decisions
8 The ability to wield more governmental power as a group than individually.
9 Will leverage individual strengths for the benefit of the collaboration.
10 A regional approach will create treated water supply reliability and flexibility to
meet the Fort Collins and Tri-Districts area water demand in the long term (>30
years). Opportunities to maximize water resource portfolios (Poudre River and
CBT sources) by matching the capability of each water treatment plant to the
available supply which could potentially bring significant budget savings.
11 An opportunity to provide uniform finished water quality to meet regulatory
changes and Fort Collins and Tri-Districts area customer needs.
12 An opportunity to leverage the purchasing power of a collaborative approach to
better control treatment plant operation and maintenance costs.
37
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Non-Financial Attributes
13 The ability to optimize staffing and scheduling of the two treatment plants.
14 Provide cross-training benefits to treatment plant personnel.
15 Standardize employee and operation and health & safety approaches between
the two treatment plants.
16 Sends a positive signal to the public regarding government collaboration to
enhance efficiency of investment and operation.
5.2 Organizational Model Case Studies
Based on input received during Phase 1, RWCC asked to see a summary of attributes
for the following governance models:
1. Water Conservation District
2. Title 32 Special District
3. Title 29 Water Authority
Following is a brief description of the three case studies evaluated for RWCC: Platte
River Power Authority, South Metro Water Supply Authority, and Southeast Public
Improvement Metropolitan Water district. A detailed write-up and side-by-side
comparison of the case studies is included in Appendix D.
5.2.1 Case Study 1 - Platte River Power Authority (Title 29)
The Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) was formed over 40 years ago when four
Colorado municipalities combined to create a jointly-owned, economically self-
sustaining, not-for-profit electric utility. The four municipalities include Estes Park, Fort
Collins, Longmont, and Loveland and they look to the PRPA to provide supplemental
power beyond their federal hydropower interests.
The PRPA is organized under the "Amended and Restated Organic Contract
Establishing Platte River Power Authority as a Separate Governmental Entity" dated
September 1, 2010; a 1998 amendment that declared Platte River Power an
"enterprise" for purposes of Section 20, Article X of the Colorado Constitution
(TABOR); and separate contracts of the Supply of Electric Power and Energy with
each of the participating municipalities.
The statutory authority for the PRPA is § 29-1-204, C.R.S.; providing authority for
municipalities to establish a separate governmental entity, specifically a power
38
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
authority. The governing body is an eight member Board of Directors with two board
members appointed from each municipality (the Mayor or mayor appointee and a
member appointed by the municipality). The Mayors’ term follows the Mayoral term
limits and the appointed directors have a rotating 4-year limit. Because there is an even
number of directors, a deadlock is a possibility. Weighted voting is established to break
the deadlock.
The current term of the PRPA contract is 2050. There is no termination or withdrawal
allowed prior to 2050. After 2050 withdrawal is allowed with a 12-month notice as long
as there are no outstanding bonds. A formula is established for distribution of assets. A
unique provision for PRPA includes broad authority, upon receipt of approval of each
Municipality, to "provide additional designated function, service, or facility lawfully
authorized to any combination of two or more of the Municipalities, provided that these
constitute an 'enterprise' " under TABOR. This additional flexibility allows the Authority
to adapt without fully amending the Organic Contract.
5.2.2 Case Study 2 - South Metro Water Supply Authority (Title 29)
The South Metro Water Supply Authority (SMWSA) was formed in 2004 and includes
fourteen (14) water providers located in Douglas and Arapahoe Counties in Colorado.
They are organized under the “First Amended and Restated South Metro Water Supply
Authority Intergovernmental Agreement” dated January 1, 2006. The statutory authority
is § 29-1-204.2, C.R.S.; providing the authority of municipalities, special districts, or
other political subdivisions to establish a separate governmental entity, specifically a
water authority.
The SMWSA Board is comprised of five Board members (four appointed from the 4-
largest member water providers and one from the smaller member water providers
who vote for their board seat). There are no term limits for large providers but there is
1-year term (with no limit on the number of terms) for small providers. Some decisions
(per contract) require unanimous vote.
The term of the district contract is perpetual but any entity can withdraw at will under a
specified requirement. Additionally, if the contract is terminated, there is a formula for
distribution of assets. District dues are split 2/3 to the four largest providers and 1/3 to
the remainder. A participation agreement is required for construction projects and there
is no obligation to participate. There is a $20,000 limit on projects above which the
Board must unanimously approve.
39
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
5.2.3 Case Study 3 - Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District (Title 32)
In the early 1980s, the special districts located in the vicinity of I-25 from I-225 south to
Surrey Ridge in Douglas County recognized the need for public improvements in the
area. The districts formed the Joint Southeast Public Improvement Authority (JSPIA) to
jointly fund the improvements and work cooperatively. In the early 2000s, the members
of JSPIA wished to leverage the cooperation among their members and allow a mill
levy to be used to fund future improvements. Together, they formed the Southeast
Public Improvements Metropolitan District (SPIMD). SPIMD has partnered with the
Denver South Economic Development Partnership (a traditional economic
development entity) and the Transportation Management Association (TMA) to create
a "three-legged stool" to support the economic and public improvement health of the
Tech Center.
SPIMD includes commercial property within Denver, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties
along I-25. Members include commercial property owners within the SPIMD
boundaries and approved by all "governing entities" within the District Boundaries. The
governing entities include Denver, Arapahoe County, Douglas County, Greenwood
Village, City of Centennial, and Lone Tree.
SPIMD is organized under a traditional Metropolitan District Service Plan and
Intergovernmental Agreement with all of the member counties and municipalities. The
statutory authority is 32-1-101 et seq., C.R.S.; the Special District Act.
The governing body is a five member Board of Directors elected at-large. Terms of
Office are four years as set by statute. Exclusion from the District is governed by
statute. Dissolution of the District is governed by statute and requires approval of
eligible electors. Residential property is excluded before there are any sales to general
homeowners. SPIMD is also permitted to spend tax money on economic development
activities.
5.2.4 Other Entities Considered 1 - Water Conservation District
A Water Conservation District is potentially the most powerful and uniquely tailored
entity. It is created through the normal State of Colorado legislative process. The
legislative process gives this entity its flexibility but also makes it one of the most
difficult entities to form.
40
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
The Legislative process includes the following:
• Caucus with interested parties
o Local legislative delegation;
o Local counties, municipalities, and special districts;
o Local and statewide special interests (Trout Unlimited, conservation
groups, etc.)
o West Slope interests and legislators
o Southern Colorado interests and legislators
• A Bill is drafted and introduced in the House
• Negotiated through House committees
• Passed by the House
• Introduced in the Senate
• Negotiated through Senate Committees
• Passed by the Senate
• Reconcile differences between House bill and Senate Bill (if any)
• Signed by the Governor
As is often the cases with the legislative process, there are many opportunities for
laborious legislative changes and the need for compromise.
5.2.5 Other Entities Considered 2 - Title 29 Intergovernmental Agreement
A Title 29 Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") is nearly identical to a Title 29
Authority (see the discussion regarding the Platte River Power Authority and the South
Metro Water Supply Authority, above) except that it is not a standalone governmental
entity.
As the result of not being a standalone governmental entity, a Title 29 IGA does not
allow ownership of property by the group. All assets must be held in the name of one of
the signers of the IGA. It also does not allow issuance of revenue bonds. All revenue
bonds must be issued by one of the signers of the IGA.
5.2.6 Summary of Governance Options
RWCC provided a list of Deal Breakers (discussed earlier) that would prevent the
formation of a regional solution. Based on this list, Table 23 compares the deal
breakers with each of the governance options evaluated.
41
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
Table 23 RWCC Deal Breakers and Governance Options
RWCC Deal Breakers
Title 29
Authority
Title 32
Special
District
Title
29
IGA
Conservation
District
1 Entity = 1 Vote YES NO YES YES
No Say on End Use YES YES YES YES
Equitable Treatment of Staff YES YES YES YES
Equitable Financial Representation of Assets YES NO YES YES
Unanimous Decision to Amend YES NO YES YES
Cost of Service Equity YES YES YES YES
Revenue Bonds YES YES NO YES
Easy to Form YES NO YES NO
Property Tax Authority NO1 YES NO YES
1 RWCC does not require taxing authority.
The case studies and governing body comparisons indicate that there are a number of
choices for forming an authority that could work for RWCC. However, based on the
analysis, RWCC should consider forming a Title 29 Authority as it meets the basic
criteria of RWCC for developing a regional solution and provides the flexibility to
address the interests of the parties.
42
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
6. Recommendations
A foundation for the Phase 2 report is the RWCC agreed to list of “deal breakers” that
guided the development of a collaborative solution as follows:
1. Any Collaboration Scenario requires equal representation: 1 entity = 1 vote.
2. Any regional solution can have no decision or say regarding the end use or
distribution of water.
3. There must be fair and equitable treatment of all staff.
4. There must be equitable financial representation of all assets that are brought
to the table.
5. All charters and other amendments of any regional solution must be made by
unanimous decisions by all parties.
6. There must be cost of service clarity (how are expansions to capacity, plant
improvements and regulatory issues allotted and paid for).
The Phase 2 data analysis illustrates that there is a significant regional benefit to
collaboration. A regional collaboration would benefit by approximately $76 million.
There are also significant non-financial benefits as summarized in Table 22.
What is at issue is the apparent inequity of this combined benefit. The question or
challenge for RWCC is, “How should that benefit be shared?” The Project Team
believes this “sharing” can be determined in a number of different ways and RWCC
can negotiate the best method of making the benefits more equitable.
1. The Project Team recommends that RWCC move forward with a regional
Collaboration Scenario and Phase 3 based on the outcomes of Phase 2.
Potential regional cost savings of $76 million over 30 years.
2. Regional collaboration has significant non-financial benefits as summarized in
Table 22.
3. There are structures to accommodate a combined entity.
This will provide the RWCC with the opportunity to identify and develop approaches to
the distribution of the estimated $76M of regional benefits to the Fort Collins and Tri-
Districts area of a collaborative approach to the water treatment over that of
maintaining the Status Quo Scenario. Phase 3 includes the development of a Strategic
Implementation Plan that specifies key activities required to establish the organizational
model identified in Phase 2 (Title 29 Authority).
The Phase 3 Technical Memorandum would be building on the Phase 2 Technical
Memorandum to develop with the RWCC a strategic implementation plan that would
43
Technical Memorandum 2
Regional Water Treatment Solutions for
The Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins
provide the information to assist the RWCC members on the final decision of the merits
of the moving forward or not moving forward with the regional collaboration.
Building from the Phase 2 Technical Memorandum, it is recommended in the Phase 3
Technical Memorandum that a strategic implementation plan for consideration by the
RWCC members be prepared. Elements should include and address RWCC
comments raised in the Phase 2 deliberations including potential organization and
staffing structures, governance agreements, service agreements, management
authority, as well as implementation phase check list of activities and needed
resources with a likely schedule. This would be based on a framework that adheres to
the RWCC ‘deal breaker’ list of elements.
44
Appendix A
Workshop 2 Discussion
Summary
MEMO
To:
Terry Farrill, PE
District Engineer
Fort Collins – Loveland Water District
South Fort Collins Sanitation District
5150 Snead Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
From:
Jason Kerstiens, PE
Date: ARCADIS Project No.:
December 10, 2013 04141801
Subject:
RWCC Workshop # 2 Discussion Summary
As part of Phase 2 of the Regional Water Treatment Solutions for the Tri-Districts and City of Fort Collins,
ARCADIS conducted Workshop #2 on November 8, 2013. The workshop was held at the City of Fort Collins
Treatment Facility (Facility). The workshop began at 8:30 a.m.
Attendance:
Facilitators:
ARCADIS
Jack Bryck, Principal in Charge
Jason Kerstiens, Project Manager
Clare Haas Claveau, Project Engineer
Isalah Rounds, Financial Analyst
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Rick Giardina, Financial Analysis Lead
Means Consulting, LLC
Ed Means, Lead Facilitator
Spencer, Fane & Grimshaw, LLP
James Hunsaker, Legal Consultant
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
100 Fillmore Street
Suite 200
Denver
Colorado 80206
Tel 303 316 6500
Fax 303 316 6599
Page:
1/6
RWCC Members and Guests:
Mike DiTullio, FCLWD, District Manager
Terry Farrill, FCLWD, District Engineer
Kathy Hawkins, FCLWD, Controller/Office Manager
Jay East, FCLWD, Operations Supervisor
Mike Scheid, ELCO, District Manager
Randy Siddens, ELCO, District Engineer
Vernon Sunset, ELCO, Vice Chairman Board of Directors
Loren Maxey, ELCO, Chairman Board of Directors
Rick Pickard, NWCWD, Assistant Manager
Chuck Achniger, NWCWD, Director
Gerry Horak, City of Fort Collins, Mayor Pro Tem
Jon Haukaas, City of Fort Collins, Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager
Lisa Voytko, City of Fort Collins, Water Production Manager
Kevin Gertig, City of Fort Collins, Water Resources and Treatment Manager
Lance Smith, City of Fort Collins, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Gino Campana, City of Fort Collins, City Council Member
Carrie Daggett, City of Fort Collins, Attorney’s Office
Following are highlights of the workshop discussions. Please refer to the attached Agenda and
Presentation Slides for details.
Review / Discuss Scope and Objectives
Ed Means provided an overview of the project that ARCADIS is performing on behalf of the Regional
Water Cooperation Committee (RWCC) and Workshop #2 objectives.
Summary of October 21st Working Session
Jack Bryck discussed this interim working session that allowed the financial team to form assumptions for
the financial analysis. Refer to the workshop slides for details. Deal breakers were also reviewed.
Workshop participant comments included:
• Require equal representation – 1 entity = 1 vote. RWCC would like to see this point
communicated that there are 4 entities so 4 total votes.
Mr. Bryck also reviewed the direction received from the October 21st working session.
Workshop participant comments included:
• FCLWD build-out in 2032 and a growth rate of approximately 6.83% to a total of 59.642 MGD
There was disagreement on this number – it may be optimistic despite that the growth projection
is based on historical growth patterns.
• Shift anticipated SCFP expansion to start in 2017. Rick Giardina noted that this assumption will
vary in the financial model.
Page:
2/6
Additional discussion included using language like “Joint Action Agency” or “Cooperative” as opposed to
“Authority”.
Demand Projection Review
Jason Kerstiens reviewed the current and projected water demand analysis and its assumptions as critical
for the financial analysis. Refer to the slides for details.
Workshop participant comments included:
• Discussion on if the model should account for some water conservation over time
• FCLWD uses about 120 gal/day – a number based on empirical data from the historical data set.
Some concern was expressed that each of the four entities were using per capita water use in
their respective projections of water demand and that perhaps all should use the same.
• Depending on increases in the price of the commodity projected demands may change.
• The Demand Graph shows the mid-point of projections; RWCC would prefer to see a range
• The data used for water demand projections likely needs more review and agreement between
parties
Summary of Financial Analysis
Rick Giardina led the review and discussion of the Financial Analysis. Refer to the workshop slides for
details.
• Workshop participants agreed that of the five scenarios listed below, the Status Quo with
PIFs and Regionalization #3 with PIFs are the two most realistic scenarios to compare
(long term).
1. Status Quo with PIFs
2. Status Quo without PIFs
3. Regionalization #1 – No PIFs included as capital cost offset and all future
capacity needs are shared by four entities.
4. Regionalization #2 – No PIFs included as capital cost offset and capacity needs
beyond 147 MGD are paid for by only the entity needing capacity.
5. Regionalization #3 – PIFs included as capital cost offset and all future capacity
needs are shared by four entities.
• Financial assumptions used:
Page:
3/6
o $2.52/gallon estimated cost of service is based on the City of Fort Collins calculated
treatment PIF. This was the amount used in the recent agreement for the purchase of
5 MGD capacity between the City and FCLWD. The current cost of the next capacity
expansion project at SCFP is based on $1.33/gallon
o Beyond the next capacity expansion at SCFP, $3.50/gallon was used for all
subsequent capacity additions. This cost estimate is for a greenfield plant that
requires siting, permitting, etc. (as opposed to a retrofit situation).
o Workshop participants agreed on the SCFP asset allocation as provided by ELCO.
o Asset valuation shows equitable but not equal distribution
o The financial analysis is based on the projected peak day demand for each of the
RWCC members. These projections were based on current peak day capacity needs
and the estimated build-out dates provided by each RWCC member.
o Workshop participants agreed that there should be a provision for a 5-year review
process to revise projections if necessary.
• Financial Analysis Results
o Long term, the status quo scenario is more cost effective for FCLWD and NWCWD
o Long term, the Regionalization scenario is more cost effective for the City and ELCO
o When combining overall costs for all four entities long term, the regionalization scenario
has more cost benefits than the status quo scenario
Preliminary Conclusion / Discussion of Key Policy Questions
Mr. Means led the discussion on advantages and further considerations to forming a regional solution.
Refer to the slides for details. There were no further comments on this topic.
Case Studies
Jim Hunsaker presented case studies and additional information on governing options. Refer to the slides
for details. There were no further comments.
Open Discussion
Mr. Means encouraged the groups to share and discuss their viewpoints on the analysis and the process.
Workshop participant comments included:
• The financial results were a bit overwhelming and most present felt they needed time to review
the assumptions and results.
Page:
4/6
• The group would like to see the financial analysis simplified into a couple of graphs including total
regional benefit (vs. just individual benefits and costs).
• To take back to their respective Boards, RWCC must have concise information to communicate
“What’s the buy-in and what does each RWCC member get?”
• Some RWCC members felt that some of the financial and projected water demand assumptions
made have yet to be quantified and are subject to review and potential modification.
• FCLWD voiced that it looks like they are “taking” and not “giving” and that could distort
perceptions. This is a reference to the financial analysis Option 3 and Status Quo that shows a
positive NPV for the City and ELCO and a negative NPV for FCLWD and NWCWD.
• Why not just buy water rather than consolidate (status-quo)?
• From a citizen perspective a regional approach is positive since the water district lines cross City-
limit borders. It can provide a more global look at the area.
• There is the opportunity to hedge risk – a larger group can deal better with fire, other
emergencies, etc.
• Some RWCC members recognize a global benefit to consolidation exists but the numbers need to
make sense.
• A graphic is needed to show how the City could “share” some of the indicated financial
advantages to make regionalization more attractive for the Tri-Districts.
• A future regionalization could look at distribution since there are connection and metering
agreements already.
• What is the unit cost?
• Workshop participants indicated that the information presented at the workshop was significantly
lacking and confusing. ARCADIS needs to provide definitive and specific conclusions,
recommendations, costs, benefits, considerations, etc.
• Kathy Hawkins and Lance Smith indicated that a meeting is needed with Rick Giardina to discuss
financial assumptions, details, how the analysis was derived, the logic behind the valuation and
merger of assets analysis, etc. ELCO and NWCWD would like to attend the meeting.
Page:
5/6
Mr. Means raised the concept of pursuing a “mini” Phase 3. The workshop participants agreed that they
want to finish Phase 2 by making adjustments and showing sensitivity in analysis.
Summary of the general messages moving forward:
• All four parties need to be ‘financial winners’ despite other advantages to regionalization.
• There is a need to find pathways to carve out common financial benefits.
• RWCC must think long-term.
• Existing governance models work and can be replicated.
• Regional approach for water treatment is a springboard for other area issues and a step forward
in regional cooperation.
• Takes debt off individuals and puts on larger entity.
• Unique opportunity right now
Next Steps
• RWCC members prepare questions on analysis for ARCADIS.
• ARCADIS will prepare Phase 2 Technical Memorandum for delivery to RWCC in December.
• RWCC members and stakeholders present summary and recommendations to individual boards
after receiving the Phase 2 Technical Memorandum.
Attachments:
November 8th Workshop Agenda
November 8th Workshop Presentation Slides
Page:
6/6
Appendix B
Capital Improvement
Plans
1. Status Quo Scenario CIP for
both facilities. Two regulatory
projects and a regionalization
connection project were
added for SCFP. PIF revenue
adjustments for expansion
projects for each entity are
shown below the CIPs.
2. Collaboration Scenario CIP.
Two regulatory projects and a
regionalization connection
project were added for SCFP.
Additional capacity projects
are projected after SCFP is
expanded to capacity. PIF
revenue adjustments for
expansion projects are shown
below the CIP.
CIP for Status Quo Scenario ($)
STATUS QUO CIP 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion (45 MGD to 60 MGD) 0 0 0 0 0 20,000,000 0
Repair & Replacement 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regionalization Connections Project 975,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disinfection System 0 0 550,552 2,488,068 2,583,112 0 0
Total SCFP 1,475,000 500,000 1,050,552 2,988,068 3,083,112 20,500,000 500,000
SCFP Improvements 1,475,000 500,000 1,050,552 2,988,068 3,083,112 500,000 500,000
SCFP Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 20,000,000 0
Total SCFP 1,475,000 500,000 1,050,552 2,988,068 3,083,112 20,500,000 500,000
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine Contact Basin 5,259,457 5,460,369 0 0 0 0 0
Disinfection System 0 0 1,064,401 4,810,264 4,994,016 0 0
Halligan Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2015 2,091,205 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2016 0 2,581,182 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2017 0 0 2,516,995 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2018 0 0 0 450,000 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2019 0 0 0 0 1,167,521 0 0
Replacement Program 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2,634,436 0
Replacement Program Beyond 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000
Finished Water Metering 500,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Backwash Pump VFD 285,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solids Handling and Treatment 0 300,000 8,000,000 0 0 0 0
Presedimentation upgrades 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regionalization Connections Project 325,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total City Facility 11,960,662 8,941,551 11,581,396 5,260,264 6,161,537 2,634,436 1,500,000
City Facility Improvements 11,960,662 8,941,551 11,581,396 5,260,264 6,161,537 2,634,436 1,500,000
City Facility Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total City Facility 11,960,662 8,941,551 11,581,396 5,260,264 6,161,537 2,634,436 1,500,000
TRI-DISTRICTS COSTS DRIVEN BY PROJECTED DEMAND (INFLATED COSTS)
ELCO Additional Capacity Purchased 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCLWD Additional Capacity Purchased 0 12,359,485 0 0 0 0 0
NWCWD Additional Capacity Purchased 0 0 0 13,112,178 0 0 0
PIF Adjustments
ELCO Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 5,518,744 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 (2,316,147) 0
Net SCFP Expansion (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 3,202,597 0
Net SCFP Expansion (before inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 2,682,125 0
ELCO Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCLWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted) 0 0 0 0 0 10,053,045 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 (10,053,045) 0
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCLWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted) 0 12,359,485 0 0 0 0 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 (3,083,872) 0 0 0 0 0
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation) 0 9,275,614 0 0 0 0 0
CIP for Status Quo Scenario ($)
STATUS QUO CIP
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion (45 MGD to 60 MGD)
Repair & Replacement
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Regionalization Connections Project
Disinfection System
Total SCFP
SCFP Improvements
SCFP Expansion
Total SCFP
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project
Chlorine Contact Basin
Disinfection System
Halligan Reservoir
Replacement Program 2015
Replacement Program 2016
Replacement Program 2017
Replacement Program 2018
Replacement Program 2019
Replacement Program 2020
Replacement Program Beyond 2020
Finished Water Metering
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply
Backwash Pump VFD
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Solids Handling and Treatment
Presedimentation upgrades
Regionalization Connections Project
Total City Facility
City Facility Improvements
City Facility Expansion
Total City Facility
TRI-DISTRICTS COSTS DRIVEN BY PROJECTED DEMAND (INFLATED COSTS)
ELCO Additional Capacity Purchased
FCLWD Additional Capacity Purchased
NWCWD Additional Capacity Purchased
PIF Adjustments
ELCO Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net SCFP Expansion (after inflation)
Net SCFP Expansion (before inflation)
ELCO Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
FCLWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
FCLWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
CIP for Status Quo Scenario ($)
STATUS QUO CIP
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion (45 MGD to 60 MGD)
Repair & Replacement
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Regionalization Connections Project
Disinfection System
Total SCFP
SCFP Improvements
SCFP Expansion
Total SCFP
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project
Chlorine Contact Basin
Disinfection System
Halligan Reservoir
Replacement Program 2015
Replacement Program 2016
Replacement Program 2017
Replacement Program 2018
Replacement Program 2019
Replacement Program 2020
Replacement Program Beyond 2020
Finished Water Metering
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply
Backwash Pump VFD
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Solids Handling and Treatment
Presedimentation upgrades
Regionalization Connections Project
Total City Facility
City Facility Improvements
City Facility Expansion
Total City Facility
TRI-DISTRICTS COSTS DRIVEN BY PROJECTED DEMAND (INFLATED COSTS)
ELCO Additional Capacity Purchased
FCLWD Additional Capacity Purchased
NWCWD Additional Capacity Purchased
PIF Adjustments
ELCO Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net SCFP Expansion (after inflation)
Net SCFP Expansion (before inflation)
ELCO Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
FCLWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
FCLWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
CIP for Status Quo Scenario ($)
STATUS QUO CIP
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion (45 MGD to 60 MGD)
Repair & Replacement
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Regionalization Connections Project
Disinfection System
Total SCFP
SCFP Improvements
SCFP Expansion
Total SCFP
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project
Chlorine Contact Basin
Disinfection System
Halligan Reservoir
Replacement Program 2015
Replacement Program 2016
Replacement Program 2017
Replacement Program 2018
Replacement Program 2019
Replacement Program 2020
Replacement Program Beyond 2020
Finished Water Metering
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply
Backwash Pump VFD
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Solids Handling and Treatment
Presedimentation upgrades
Regionalization Connections Project
Total City Facility
City Facility Improvements
City Facility Expansion
Total City Facility
TRI-DISTRICTS COSTS DRIVEN BY PROJECTED DEMAND (INFLATED COSTS)
ELCO Additional Capacity Purchased
FCLWD Additional Capacity Purchased
NWCWD Additional Capacity Purchased
PIF Adjustments
ELCO Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net SCFP Expansion (after inflation)
Net SCFP Expansion (before inflation)
ELCO Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
FCLWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
FCLWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
CIP for Collaboration Scenario ($)
COLLABORATION CIP 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion or New Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Repair & Replacement 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regionalization Connections Project 975,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disinfection System 0 0 550,552 2,488,068 2,583,112 0 0 0
Total SCFP 1,475,000 500,000 1,050,552 2,988,068 3,083,112 500,000 500,000 500,000
SCFP Improvements 1,475,000 500,000 1,050,552 2,988,068 3,083,112 500,000 500,000 500,000
SCFP Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total SCFP 1,475,000 500,000 1,050,552 2,988,068 3,083,112 500,000 500,000 500,000
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine Contact Basin 5,259,457 5,460,369 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disinfection System 0 0 1,064,401 4,810,264 4,994,016 0 0 0
Halligan Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2015 2,091,205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2016 0 2,581,182 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2017 0 0 2,516,995 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2018 0 0 0 450,000 0 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2019 0 0 0 0 1,167,521 0 0 0
Replacement Program 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2,634,436 0 0
Replacement Program Beyond 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000
Finished Water Metering 500,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Backwash Pump VFD 285,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solids Handling and Treatment 0 300,000 8,000,000 0 0 0 0 0
Presedimentation upgrades 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regionalization Connections Project 325,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total City Facility 11,960,662 8,941,551 11,581,396 5,260,264 6,161,537 2,634,436 1,500,000 1,500,000
City Facility Improvements 11,960,662 8,941,551 11,581,396 5,260,264 6,161,537 2,634,436 1,500,000 1,500,000
City Facility Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total City Facility 11,960,662 8,941,551 11,581,396 5,260,264 6,161,537 2,634,436 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Regional Improvements 13,435,662 9,441,551 12,631,948 8,248,332 9,244,649 3,134,436 2,000,000 2,000,000
Total Regional Expansion
Gross Expansion (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Regional Expansion (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Regional Expansion (before inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Remaining Regional Facility 13,435,662 9,441,551 12,631,948 8,248,332 9,244,649 3,134,436 2,000,000 2,000,000
Buy-In Regional Facility
ELCO 2,501,680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCLWD 38,412,918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NWCWD 16,419,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City (57,333,599) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 5
CIP for Collaboration Scenario ($)
COLLABORATION CIP
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion or New Plant
Repair & Replacement
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Regionalization Connections Project
Disinfection System
Total SCFP
SCFP Improvements
SCFP Expansion
Total SCFP
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project
Chlorine Contact Basin
Disinfection System
Halligan Reservoir
Replacement Program 2015
Replacement Program 2016
Replacement Program 2017
Replacement Program 2018
Replacement Program 2019
Replacement Program 2020
Replacement Program Beyond 2020
Finished Water Metering
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply
Backwash Pump VFD
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Solids Handling and Treatment
Presedimentation upgrades
Regionalization Connections Project
Total City Facility
City Facility Improvements
City Facility Expansion
Total City Facility
Total Regional Improvements
Total Regional Expansion
Gross Expansion (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Regional Expansion (after inflation)
Net Regional Expansion (before inflation)
Total Remaining Regional Facility
Buy-In Regional Facility
ELCO
FCLWD
NWCWD
City
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000,000 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 31,724,138 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 32,224,138 500,000 500,000 20,500,000 500,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 32,224,138 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000,000 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 32,224,138 500,000 500,000 20,500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CIP for Collaboration Scenario ($)
COLLABORATION CIP
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion or New Plant
Repair & Replacement
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Regionalization Connections Project
Disinfection System
Total SCFP
SCFP Improvements
SCFP Expansion
Total SCFP
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project
Chlorine Contact Basin
Disinfection System
Halligan Reservoir
Replacement Program 2015
Replacement Program 2016
Replacement Program 2017
Replacement Program 2018
Replacement Program 2019
Replacement Program 2020
Replacement Program Beyond 2020
Finished Water Metering
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply
Backwash Pump VFD
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Solids Handling and Treatment
Presedimentation upgrades
Regionalization Connections Project
Total City Facility
City Facility Improvements
City Facility Expansion
Total City Facility
Total Regional Improvements
Total Regional Expansion
Gross Expansion (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Regional Expansion (after inflation)
Net Regional Expansion (before inflation)
Total Remaining Regional Facility
Buy-In Regional Facility
ELCO
FCLWD
NWCWD
City
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
0 0 0 0 0 0 69,075,528 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 69,575,528 500,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 69,075,528 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 69,575,528 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CIP for Collaboration Scenario ($)
COLLABORATION CIP
Soldier Canyon (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Plant Expansion or New Plant
Repair & Replacement
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Regionalization Connections Project
Disinfection System
Total SCFP
SCFP Improvements
SCFP Expansion
Total SCFP
FTC (NON-INFLATED COSTS)
Hydro Generation Project
Chlorine Contact Basin
Disinfection System
Halligan Reservoir
Replacement Program 2015
Replacement Program 2016
Replacement Program 2017
Replacement Program 2018
Replacement Program 2019
Replacement Program 2020
Replacement Program Beyond 2020
Finished Water Metering
Water Production Division - Master Plan Update
REP Michigan Ditch Support Structures/Source of Supply
Backwash Pump VFD
GAC - Granular Active Carbon Filtration
Solids Handling and Treatment
Presedimentation upgrades
Regionalization Connections Project
Total City Facility
City Facility Improvements
City Facility Expansion
Total City Facility
Total Regional Improvements
Total Regional Expansion
Gross Expansion (after inflation)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Regional Expansion (after inflation)
Net Regional Expansion (before inflation)
Total Remaining Regional Facility
Buy-In Regional Facility
ELCO
FCLWD
NWCWD
City
2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
0 0 0 0 82,479,793 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 82,979,793 500,000 500,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 82,479,793 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 82,979,793 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix C
Budget Information and
Annual O&M and
Capital Costs
1. Allocated O&M under Status
Quo and Collaboration
Scenarios
2. Total O&M Under Status
Quo and Collaboration
Scenarios
3. Summary Facility and SCFP
Budget
4. 2013 Facility budget
5. 2014 SCFP budget
6. Historical and Projected
Peak-Day, Annual and
Peaking Factors by Entity
Budget Allocation Based on Annual Demand
SCFPBudget Split
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Combined Facilities Budget Split
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Status Quo - O&M and Minor Capital Excluding Incremental Purchases from City
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Status Quo - O&M and Minor Capital Including Incremental Purchases from City
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Collaboration - O&M and Minor Capital
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
42.31% 42.86% 43.36% 43.81% 44.21% 44.57% 44.90% 45.19% 45.45% 45.67% 45.44% 45.20% 44.96% 44.72% 44.47% 44.23% 43.98%
21.33% 21.10% 20.89% 20.68% 20.49% 20.30% 20.13% 19.95% 19.79% 19.63% 19.62% 19.61% 19.60% 19.57% 19.55% 19.51% 19.47%
36.37% 36.04% 35.76% 35.51% 35.30% 35.12% 34.98% 34.86% 34.77% 34.70% 34.94% 35.19% 35.44% 35.71% 35.98% 36.27% 36.56%
55.03% 54.48% 53.96% 53.45% 52.96% 52.48% 51.98% 51.50% 51.03% 50.58% 50.33% 50.00% 49.67% 49.34% 49.02% 48.70% 48.32%
19.03% 19.51% 19.96% 20.39% 20.80% 21.18% 21.56% 21.92% 22.26% 22.57% 22.57% 22.60% 22.63% 22.65% 22.67% 22.69% 22.73%
9.59% 9.60% 9.62% 9.63% 9.64% 9.65% 9.66% 9.68% 9.69% 9.70% 9.75% 9.81% 9.86% 9.92% 9.96% 10.01% 10.06%
16.35% 16.40% 16.46% 16.53% 16.61% 16.69% 16.79% 16.91% 17.02% 17.15% 17.35% 17.59% 17.84% 18.09% 18.34% 18.61% 18.89%
438,479 611,526 797,219 991,968 1,161,092 1,342,158 1,395,844 1,451,678 1,509,745 1,570,135 1,632,941 1,698,258 1,766,188 1,836,836 1,910,309 1,986,722 2,066,191
- - - 740,275 769,886 800,681 832,708 866,017 900,657 936,684 974,151 1,013,117 1,053,642 1,095,788 1,139,619 1,185,204 1,232,612
$ 7,847,314 $ 8,161,207 $ 8,487,655 $ 8,827,161 $ 9,180,248 $ 9,547,457 $ 9,929,356 $ 10,326,530 $ 10,739,591 $ 11,169,175 $ 11,615,942 $ 12,080,580 $ 12,563,803 $ 13,066,355 $ 13,589,009
$ 14,132,569 $ 14,697,872
$ 1,570,896 $ 1,655,105 $ 1,741,333 $ 1,829,735 $ 1,920,463 $ 2,013,664 $ 2,109,482 $ 2,208,062 $ 2,309,544 $ 2,815,872 $ 2,913,470 $ 3,014,195 $ 3,118,145 $ 3,225,418 $ 3,336,118 $
3,450,346 $ 3,568,208
$ 791,849 $ 814,783 $ 838,791 $ 863,873 $ 890,029 $ 917,261 $ 945,573 $ 974,970 $ 1,005,458 $ 1,210,082 $ 1,258,318 $ 1,308,027 $ 1,359,232 $ 1,411,951 $ 1,466,205 $ 1,522,011 $ 1,579,389
$ 1,350,376 $ 1,391,759 $ 1,435,988 $ 1,483,148 $ 1,533,335 $ 1,586,655 $ 1,643,228 $ 1,703,183 $ 1,766,661 $ 2,139,797 $ 2,240,594 $ 2,346,654 $ 2,458,255 $ 2,575,687 $ 2,699,256 $
2,829,285 $ 2,966,111
$ 11,560,435 $ 12,022,853 $ 12,503,767 $ 13,003,918 $ 13,524,074 $ 14,065,037 $ 14,627,639 $ 15,212,744 $ 15,821,254 $ 17,334,926 $ 18,028,323 $ 18,749,456 $ 19,499,434 $ 20,279,411
$ 21,090,588 $ 21,934,211 $ 22,811,580
$ 7,847,314 $ 8,161,207 $ 8,487,655 $ 8,827,161 $ 9,180,248 $ 9,547,457 $ 9,929,356 $ 10,326,530 $ 10,739,591 $ 11,169,175 $ 11,615,942 $ 12,080,580 $ 12,563,803 $ 13,066,355 $ 13,589,009
$ 14,132,569 $ 14,697,872
$ 2,009,375 $ 2,266,631 $ 2,538,552 $ 2,821,703 $ 3,081,555 $ 3,355,822 $ 3,505,327 $ 3,659,740 $ 3,819,290 $ 4,386,007 $ 4,546,410 $ 4,712,453 $ 4,884,333 $ 5,062,254 $ 5,246,427 $
5,437,068 $ 5,634,399
$ 791,849 $ 814,783 $ 838,791 $ 863,873 $ 890,029 $ 917,261 $ 945,573 $ 974,970 $ 1,005,458 $ 1,210,082 $ 1,258,318 $ 1,308,027 $ 1,359,232 $ 1,411,951 $ 1,466,205 $ 1,522,011 $ 1,579,389
$ 1,350,376 $ 1,391,759 $ 1,435,988 $ 2,223,423 $ 2,303,221 $ 2,387,337 $ 2,475,937 $ 2,569,200 $ 2,667,318 $ 3,076,481 $ 3,214,745 $ 3,359,771 $ 3,511,897 $ 3,671,474 $ 3,838,875 $
4,014,489 $ 4,198,723
$ 11,998,914 $ 12,634,379 $ 13,300,986 $ 14,736,161 $ 15,455,052 $ 16,207,877 $ 16,856,192 $ 17,530,439 $ 18,231,657 $ 19,841,745 $ 20,635,415 $ 21,460,831 $ 22,319,264 $ 23,212,035
$ 24,140,516 $ 25,106,137 $ 26,110,383
$ 6,170,720 $ 6,163,232 $ 6,157,367 $ 6,153,020 $ 6,150,096 $ 6,148,506 $ 6,143,693 $ 6,140,104 $ 6,137,667 $ 6,136,812 $ 6,351,675 $ 6,561,967 $ 6,779,357 $ 7,004,073 $ 7,236,351 $
8,326,028 $ 8,592,434
$ 2,133,482 $ 2,206,896 $ 2,278,274 $ 2,347,759 $ 2,415,480 $ 2,481,555 $ 2,548,103 $ 2,613,218 $ 2,676,986 $ 2,738,732 $ 2,847,563 $ 2,965,795 $ 3,088,347 $ 3,215,370 $ 3,347,020 $
3,879,304 $ 4,041,124
$ 1,075,434 $ 1,086,421 $ 1,097,433 $ 1,108,448 $ 1,119,442 $ 1,130,394 $ 1,142,184 $ 1,153,866 $ 1,165,423 $ 1,176,932 $ 1,229,853 $ 1,287,024 $ 1,346,243 $ 1,407,553 $ 1,470,996 $
Budget Allocation Based on Annual Demand
SCFPBudget Split
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Combined Facilities Budget Split
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Status Quo - O&M and Minor Capital Excluding Incremental Purchases from City
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Status Quo - O&M and Minor Capital Including Incremental Purchases from City
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
Collaboration - O&M and Minor Capital
City of Ft. Collins (City)
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)
2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
43.73% 43.47% 43.22% 42.96% 42.71% 42.45% 42.19% 41.92% 41.66% 41.06% 40.46% 39.87% 39.29% 38.71%
19.42% 19.36% 19.30% 19.23% 19.15% 19.07% 18.98% 18.88% 18.78% 18.78% 18.77% 18.75% 18.72% 18.68%
36.86% 37.17% 37.48% 37.81% 38.14% 38.48% 38.84% 39.19% 39.56% 40.16% 40.77% 41.38% 41.99% 42.61%
47.95% 47.58% 47.22% 46.86% 46.49% 46.13% 45.77% 45.42% 45.07% 44.80% 44.53% 44.26% 43.98% 43.71%
22.76% 22.79% 22.81% 22.83% 22.85% 22.87% 22.88% 22.88% 22.88% 22.66% 22.45% 22.23% 22.01% 21.79%
10.11% 10.15% 10.18% 10.22% 10.25% 10.27% 10.29% 10.31% 10.32% 10.37% 10.41% 10.45% 10.49% 10.52%
19.18% 19.48% 19.78% 20.09% 20.41% 20.73% 21.06% 21.39% 21.73% 22.17% 22.61% 23.06% 23.52% 23.99%
2,148,838 2,234,792 2,324,184 2,417,151 2,513,837 2,614,390 2,718,966 2,827,725 2,940,834 3,058,467 3,180,806 3,308,038 3,440,359 3,577,974
1,281,916 1,333,193 1,386,521 1,441,982 1,499,661 1,559,647 1,622,033 1,686,915 1,754,391 1,824,567 1,897,549 1,973,451 2,052,390 2,134,485
$ 15,285,787 $ 15,897,218 $ 16,533,107 $ 17,194,432 $ 17,882,209 $ 18,597,497 $ 19,341,397 $ 20,115,053 $ 20,919,655 $ 21,756,441 $ 22,626,699 $ 23,531,767 $ 24,473,037 $ 25,451,959
$ 3,689,812 $ 3,815,266 $ 3,944,682 $ 4,757,867 $ 4,918,492 $ 5,084,138 $ 5,254,943 $ 5,431,045 $ 5,612,586 $ 5,753,080 $ 6,879,290 $ 7,050,148 $ 7,224,541 $ 7,402,504
$ 1,638,354 $ 1,698,924 $ 1,761,116 $ 2,129,102 $ 2,205,494 $ 2,283,830 $ 2,364,124 $ 2,446,392 $ 2,530,648 $ 2,631,764 $ 3,191,360 $ 3,315,337 $ 3,442,330 $ 3,572,343
$ 3,110,090 $ 3,261,595 $ 3,421,019 $ 4,186,903 $ 4,392,841 $ 4,609,533 $ 4,837,533 $ 5,077,427 $ 5,329,825 $ 5,627,138 $ 6,930,555 $ 7,315,767 $ 7,721,632 $ 8,149,195
$ 23,724,043 $ 24,673,005 $ 25,659,925 $ 28,268,304 $ 29,399,036 $ 30,574,997 $ 31,797,997 $ 33,069,917 $ 34,392,714 $ 35,768,422 $ 39,627,903 $ 41,213,019 $ 42,861,540 $ 44,576,001
$ 15,285,787 $ 15,897,218 $ 16,533,107 $ 17,194,432 $ 17,882,209 $ 18,597,497 $ 19,341,397 $ 20,115,053 $ 20,919,655 $ 21,756,441 $ 22,626,699 $ 23,531,767 $ 24,473,037 $ 25,451,959
$ 5,838,650 $ 6,050,058 $ 6,268,866 $ 7,175,018 $ 7,432,329 $ 7,698,528 $ 7,973,909 $ 8,258,770 $ 8,553,419 $ 8,811,547 $ 10,060,095 $ 10,358,186 $ 10,664,900 $ 10,980,478
$ 1,638,354 $ 1,698,924 $ 1,761,116 $ 2,129,102 $ 2,205,494 $ 2,283,830 $ 2,364,124 $ 2,446,392 $ 2,530,648 $ 2,631,764 $ 3,191,360 $ 3,315,337 $ 3,442,330 $ 3,572,343
$ 4,392,006 $ 4,594,788 $ 4,807,540 $ 5,628,885 $ 5,892,502 $ 6,169,180 $ 6,459,567 $ 6,764,341 $ 7,084,216 $ 7,451,705 $ 8,828,104 $ 9,289,218 $ 9,774,021 $ 10,283,680
$ 27,154,798 $ 28,240,990 $ 29,370,629 $ 32,127,436 $ 33,412,534 $ 34,749,035 $ 36,138,997 $ 37,584,556 $ 39,087,939 $ 40,651,456 $ 44,706,258 $ 46,494,508 $ 48,354,288 $ 50,288,460
$ 8,867,464 $ 9,151,381 $ 9,444,454 $ 9,746,956 $ 10,058,197 $ 11,085,452 $ 11,439,396 $ 11,804,575 $ 12,181,312 $ 12,593,433 $ 13,018,342 $ 14,313,463 $ 14,793,699 $ 15,288,602
$ 4,208,871 $ 4,382,745 $ 4,562,954 $ 4,749,708 $ 4,943,641 $ 5,494,553 $ 5,716,891 $ 5,947,210 $ 6,185,765 $ 6,371,454 $ 6,562,225 $ 7,188,644 $ 7,402,727 $ 7,622,565
$ 1,868,827 $ 1,951,621 $ 2,037,146 $ 2,125,451 $ 2,216,771 $ 2,468,191 $ 2,571,949 $ 2,678,897 $ 2,789,088 $ 2,914,641 $ 3,044,270 $ 3,380,465 $ 3,527,231 $ 3,678,542
$ 3,547,597 $ 3,746,722 $ 3,957,215 $ 4,179,724 $ 4,415,303 $ 4,981,635 $ 5,262,789 $ 5,559,984 $ 5,874,127 $ 6,231,975 $ 6,611,127 $ 7,459,481 $ 7,912,078 $ 8,391,454
$ 18,492,759 $ 19,232,469 $ 20,001,768 $ 20,801,839 $ 21,633,912 $ 24,029,831 $ 24,991,025 $ 25,990,666 $ 27,030,292 $ 28,111,504 $ 29,235,964 $ 32,342,052 $ 33,635,734 $ 34,981,164
C - 2
Budget Summary
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Annual City Budget - Status Quo
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
City Total
Annual SCFP Budget - Status Quo
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
City Total
Combined Budget - Collaboration Before Efficiency Factor
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Combined Total
O&M Efficiency - Cumulative
O&M Efficiency - Incremental
Combined Budget - Collaboration After Effiency Factor
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Combined Total
City Facility SCFP 2014 Combined Efficiency Efficiency
2013 Budget % of Total 2014 Budget % of Total Budget Factor Phasing
$ 2,199,828 30% $ 1,263,047 35% $ 3,550,868 30.00% 10 years
$ 1,198,000 17% $ 825,464 23% $ 2,071,384
$ 415,000 6% $ 119,274 3% $ 550,874
$ 288,233 4% $ 462,854 13% $ 762,616
$ 52,026 1% $ 63,000 2% $ 117,107
$ 1,551,184 21% $ 341,450 10% $ 1,954,681
$ 1,551,012 21% $ 495,220 14% $ 2,108,272
$ 7,255,283 100% $ 3,570,309 100% $ 11,115,803
$ -
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
$ 2,379,334 $ 2,474,507 $ 2,573,488 $ 2,676,427 $ 2,783,484 $ 2,894,824 $ 3,010,617 $ 3,131,041 $ 3,256,283 $ 3,386,534 $ 3,521,996 $ 3,662,875 $ 3,809,390 $ 3,961,766 $ 4,120,237 $
4,285,046 $ 4,456,448
Budget Summary
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Annual City Budget - Status Quo
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
City Total
Annual SCFP Budget - Status Quo
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
City Total
Combined Budget - Collaboration Before Efficiency Factor
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Combined Total
O&M Efficiency - Cumulative
O&M Efficiency - Incremental
Combined Budget - Collaboration After Effiency Factor
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Combined Total
2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
$ 4,634,706 $ 4,820,094 $ 5,012,898 $ 5,213,414 $ 5,421,950 $ 5,638,828 $ 5,864,381 $ 6,098,957 $ 6,342,915 $ 6,596,632 $ 6,860,497 $ 7,134,917 $ 7,420,313 $ 7,717,126
$ 2,524,005 $ 2,624,966 $ 2,729,964 $ 2,839,163 $ 2,952,729 $ 3,070,838 $ 3,193,672 $ 3,321,419 $ 3,454,276 $ 3,592,447 $ 3,736,144 $ 3,885,590 $ 4,041,014 $ 4,202,654
$ 874,342 $ 909,316 $ 945,689 $ 983,516 $ 1,022,857 $ 1,063,771 $ 1,106,322 $ 1,150,575 $ 1,196,598 $ 1,244,462 $ 1,294,240 $ 1,346,010 $ 1,399,850 $ 1,455,844
$ 607,263 $ 631,554 $ 656,816 $ 683,089 $ 710,412 $ 738,829 $ 768,382 $ 799,117 $ 831,082 $ 864,325 $ 898,898 $ 934,854 $ 972,248 $ 1,011,138
$ 109,611 $ 113,995 $ 118,555 $ 123,297 $ 128,229 $ 133,358 $ 138,693 $ 144,241 $ 150,010 $ 156,011 $ 162,251 $ 168,741 $ 175,491 $ 182,510
$ 3,268,111 $ 3,398,835 $ 3,534,789 $ 3,676,180 $ 3,823,227 $ 3,976,156 $ 4,135,203 $ 4,300,611 $ 4,472,635 $ 4,651,541 $ 4,837,602 $ 5,031,106 $ 5,232,351 $ 5,441,645
$ 3,267,748 $ 3,398,458 $ 3,534,397 $ 3,675,772 $ 3,822,803 $ 3,975,716 $ 4,134,744 $ 4,300,134 $ 4,472,139 $ 4,651,025 $ 4,837,066 $ 5,030,548 $ 5,231,770 $ 5,441,041
$ 15,285,787 $ 15,897,218 $ 16,533,107 $ 17,194,432 $ 17,882,209 $ 18,597,497 $ 19,341,397 $ 20,115,053 $ 20,919,655 $ 21,756,441 $ 22,626,699 $ 23,531,767 $ 24,473,037 $ 25,451,959
$ 2,985,152 $ 3,104,558 $ 3,228,740 $ 3,917,538 $ 4,074,240 $ 4,237,209 $ 4,406,697 $ 4,582,965 $ 4,766,284 $ 4,956,935 $ 6,014,415 $ 6,254,991 $ 6,505,191 $ 6,765,399
$ 1,950,945 $ 2,028,983 $ 2,110,142 $ 2,560,306 $ 2,662,718 $ 2,769,227 $ 2,879,996 $ 2,995,196 $ 3,115,003 $ 3,239,604 $ 3,930,719 $ 4,087,948 $ 4,251,466 $ 4,421,524
$ 281,898 $ 293,174 $ 304,901 $ 369,947 $ 384,745 $ 400,135 $ 416,140 $ 432,786 $ 450,097 $ 468,101 $ 567,962 $ 590,681 $ 614,308 $ 638,881
$ 1,093,933 $ 1,137,691 $ 1,183,198 $ 1,435,614 $ 1,493,039 $ 1,552,760 $ 1,614,871 $ 1,679,465 $ 1,746,644 $ 1,816,510 $ 2,204,032 $ 2,292,193 $ 2,383,881 $ 2,479,236
$ 148,898 $ 154,853 $ 161,048 $ 195,404 $ 203,221 $ 211,349 $ 219,803 $ 228,595 $ 237,739 $ 247,249 $ 299,995 $ 311,995 $ 324,475 $ 337,454
Budget Summary City Facility SCFP
2013 Budget % of Total 2014 Budget % of Total
Personnel (excludes Administrative) $ 2,199,828 34% $ 1,263,047 35%
Chemicals $ 1,198,000 18% $ 825,464 23%
Energy $ 415,000 6% $ 119,274 3%
Administrative $ 288,233 4% $ 462,854 13%
Legal $ - 0% $ 63,000 2%
Lab $ 37,500 1% $ 50,250 1%
All Other $ 804,188 12% $ 291,200 8%
Minor Capital $ 1,551,012 24% $ 495,220 14%
$ 6,493,761 100% $ 3,570,309 100%
Check OK OK
C - 5
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
2013 ANNUAL BUDGET
WTF MINOR CAPITAL 2013
Actual
Facility Minor Capital Budget
Consulting Services $ -
Building Improvements $ 50,000
Construction Contracts $ 450,657
Compute Hardware $ 88,000
Computer Software $ 10,000
Motor Vehicles & Access $ 7,076
Mechanical & Heavy Equip $ 51,017
Security Equipment $ 183,887
Communications Equipment $ 8,000
Other Equipment $ 206,226
Water Filter Material $ 65,000
Other Capital Outlay $ 431,149
Total WTF Minor Cap $ 1,551,012
2013 2013
O&M Operations Maintenance
Budget Budget
Personnel
Salaries-Regular $ 1,036,515 $ 308,298
Salaries-Hourly $ 13,192 $ 13,520
Salaries-OT $ 17,501 $ 10,496
Salaries-Standby $ 10,955 $ 40,000
Termination Pay $ - $ -
Holiday Pay $ - $ -
Bonuses $ - $ -
Health Insurance $ 119,460 $ 38,880
Dental Insurance $ 7,536 $ 2,452
Retirement Contributions / 401K Match $ 34,769 $ 14,644
GERP / PERA $ 59,124 $ 11,870
Social Sec & Medicare $ 78,457 $ 29,783
Unemployment Tax $ - $ -
Workers Compensation $ 17,963 $ 7,110
Employees Group Life Ins / Life Ins PERA $ 1,821 $ 540
Long-term Disability $ 4,799 $ 1,424
Total Personnel $ 1,402,092 $ 479,017
Utilities, Equipment, and Other
Testing Services $ 15,000 $ -
Consulting Services $ - $ -
Medical Services $ 1,000 $ -
Security Services $ 24,378 $ 7,000
Education & Training $ 6,500 $ -
Disposal of Haz Mat $ 10,000 $ -
HVAC Service $ - $ -
Contract Labor $ 60,000 $ -
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 53,286 $ -
Natural Gas $ 150,000 $ -
Electricity $ 265,000 $ -
Refuse Collection / Solids Removal $ 2,100 $ -
Recycling Serv $ 550 $ -
Janitorial Serv $ 22,000 $ -
Trash Removal $ - $ -
Vehicle Repair $ 24,000 $ -
Software Mtn & Support $ 1,500 $ -
Maintenance Contracts $ 74,480 $ -
Other Repair & Maint $ 20,000 $ -
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
2013 ANNUAL BUDGET
Total Utilities, Equipment, and Other $ 780,694 $ 17,000
Supplies and Chemicals
Motor Fuel & Oil $ 25,000 $ -
Vehicle Parts $ - $ -
Machinery & Equip Parts $ 7,056 $ 80,000
Tools & Related Supplies $ - $ 15,000
Maintenance Materials $ 17,000 $ 13,000
Paint & Painting Supplies $ 12,000 $ -
Plumbing & Irrigation Supplies $ 1,000 $ 3,000
Janitorial Supplies $ - $ -
Electrical Parts $ 68,972 $ 16,300
Operational Supplies $ - $ -
Shop Supplies $ - $ 21,679
Sand & Gravel Supplies $ 4,000 $ -
Admin. / Oper. Misc $ - $ -
Office Supplies $ 100 $ -
Computer Hardware $ 5,000 $ -
Computer Software $ 2,500 $ -
Health & Safety Supplies $ 26,000 $ -
Chlorine $ 50,000 $ -
Sodium Bisulfite $ 8,000 $ -
Aluminum Sulfate $ 500,000 $ -
Calcium Hydroxide $ 175,000 $ -
Fluoride $ 200,000 $ -
Carbon $ 60,000 $ -
Flocculent Aid $ 40,000 $ -
Filter Aid $ 20,000 $ -
Chlorine Dioxide $ 75,000 $ -
Carbon Dioxide $ 60,000 $ -
Coagulants $ - $ -
Disinfectants $ - $ -
Corrosion Control $ - $ -
Pre Treatment - Chlorite $ - $ -
Other Chemical Supplies $ 10,000 $ -
Meals- Business, Non Travel $ - $ -
Food & Related Supplies $ - $ -
Educational Programs $ 2,500 $ -
Books & Periodicals $ 3,500 $ -
Clothing Supplies / Uniforms $ 12,000 $ -
Laboratory Supplies $ 30,000 $ -
Other Supplies $ 15,000 $ -
Total Supplies and Chemicals $ 1,429,628 $ 148,979
Total O & M $ 3,612,414 $ 644,996
2013
Budget
Administrative
Personnel
Salaries- Regular $ 148,659
Salaries- OT $ -
Bonuses $ -
Health Insurance $ 15,600
Dental Insurance $ 984
PERA $ -
Retirement Contributions / 401K Match $ 10,116
Unemployment Tax $ -
Social Sec & Medicare $ 11,373
Workers Compensation $ 298
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
2013 ANNUAL BUDGET
Other
Education & Training $ 1,500
Employee Testing $ 100
Contract Labor $ 2,000
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 11,130
IT/SCADA Support $ -
Water $ 5,000
Wastewater Services $ 1,500
Storm Drainage Services $ 10,000
Telephone & Internet $ -
Vehicles $ -
Vehicle Repair $ -
Software Mtn & Support $ 115
Maintenance Contracts $ 1,584
Other Repair & Maint $ 1,500
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ -
Copier Rental Services $ 4,300
Mileage $ 250
Conference & Travel $ 11,000
Other Employee Travel $ -
Postage & Freight $ -
Dues & Subscription Services $ 16,000
Insurance, Property, Liability $ -
Total Other $ 65,979
Supplies
Motor Fuel & Oil $ 1,000
Vehicle Parts $ -
Admin./Oper. Misc $ -
Office Supplies $ 10,430
Office Equipment $ 2,500
Communication Supplies $ -
Computer Hardware $ 7,000
Computer Software $ -
Health & Safety Supplies $ -
Meals-Business, Non Travel $ 200
Food & Related Supplies $ -
Educational Programs $ 1,000
Books & Periodicals $ 2,325
Clothing Supplies $ 582
Other Supplies $ 6,384
Total Supplies $ 31,421
Total Admin $ 288,233
2013
Budget
ICE (SCADA)
Personnel
Salaries-Regular $ 249,527
Salaries-Hourly $ -
Termination Pay $ -
Health Insurance $ 23,400
Dental Insurance $ 1,476
Retirement Contributions $ 8,850
GERP $ 13,815
Social Sec & Medicare $ 19,091
Workers Compensation $ 965
Employees Group Life Ins $ 440
Long-term Disability $ 1,155
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
2013 ANNUAL BUDGET
Mileage $ 283
Conference & Travel $ 15,450
IT & SCADA Support $ -
Total Other $ 30,226
Supplies
Motor Fuel & Oil $ 876
Health & Safety Supplies $ -
Meals- Business, Non Travel $ -
Food & Related Supplies $ -
Other Supplies $ 9,785
Total Supplies $ 10,661
Total ICE $ 359,606
2013
Budget
Lab / Regulatory
Personnel
Wages - Permanent $ -
Salaries-Hourly $ -
Termination Pay $ -
Health Insurance $ -
Dental Insurance $ -
Retirement Contributions / 401K Match $ -
PERA $ -
Social Sec & Medicare $ -
Workers Compensation $ -
Employees Group Life Ins $ -
Unemployment Tax $ -
Total Personnel $ -
Other
Education & Training $ -
Contract Lab / UCMR 3 $ -
Vehicle Repair $ -
Hardware Mtn & Support $ -
Software Mtn & Support $ -
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ -
Mileage $ -
Conference & Travel $ -
IT & SCADA Support $ -
Total Other $ 37,500
Supplies
Motor Fuel & Oil $ -
Office Supplies $ -
Lab Supplies $ -
Uniforms $ -
Other Supplies $ -
Total Supplies $ -
Total Lab / Regulatory $ 37,500
Total Budget $ 6,456,261
Add: Lab for City $ 37,500
Less: Source of Supply for SCFP $ -
Less: Water Resources for SCFP $ -
Total Adjusted Budget (excl. Water
Resources and Source of Supply) $ 6,493,761
C - 9
Tri-Districts
Soldier Canyon Filter Plant
2014 Budget
WTF MINOR CAPITAL 2014
Proposed
SCFP Minor Capital Budget
General Equipment $ 32,200
Lab Equipment $ 18,000
Sludge Conditioning Equipment $ 41,000
WTP Improvements $ 315,020
Security Improvements $ 20,000
Control System Improvements $ 5,000
Source of Supply Construction $ 50,000
Safety Equipment $ 14,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 495,220
2014 2014
Operations Maintenance
Budget Budget
Personnel
Salaries-Regular $ 413,761 $ 388,547
Salaries-Hourly $ - $ -
Salaries-OT $ 10,000 $ 8,000
Salaries-Standby $ - $ -
Termination Pay $ - $ -
Holiday Pay $ 13,979 $ -
Bonuses
Health Insurance $ 72,000 $ 72,000
Dental Insurance $ - $ -
Retirement Contributions / 401K Match $ 12,328 $ 11,656
GERP / PERA $ 56,298 $ 53,231
Social Sec & Medicare $ 5,959 $ 5,634
Unemployment Tax $ 822 $ 777
Workers Compensation $ 11,095 $ 10,491
Employees Group Life Ins / Life Ins PERA $ 936 $ 936
Long-term Disability $ - $ -
Total Personnel $ 597,178 $ 551,272
Utilities, Equipment, and Other
Testing Services $ - $ -
Consulting Services $ - $ -
Medical Services $ - $ -
Security Services $ - $ -
Education & Training $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Disposal of Haz Mat $ - $ -
HVAC Service $ - $ 5,000
Contract Labor $ - $ -
Other Prof & Tech Services $ - $ -
Natural Gas $ 31,209 $ -
Electricity $ 88,065 $ -
Refuse Collection / Solids Removal $ 8,000 $ -
Recycling Serv $ - $ -
Janitorial Serv $ - $ -
Trash Removal $ 3,700 $ -
Vehicle Repair $ 1,000 $ 3,500
Software Mtn & Support $ - $ -
Maintenance Contracts $ - $ -
Other Repair & Maint $ - $ -
Tri-Districts
Soldier Canyon Filter Plant
2014 Budget
Total Utilities, Equipment, and Other $ 141,974 $ 137,500
Supplies and Chemicals
Motor Fuel & Oil $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Vehicle Parts $ - $ -
Machinery & Equip Parts $ - $ -
Tools & Related Supplies $ - $ -
Maintenance Materials $ - $ -
Paint & Painting Supplies $ - $ -
Plumbing & Irrigation Supplies $ - $ -
Janitorial Supplies $ 2,000 $ -
Electrical Parts $ - $ -
Operational Supplies $ 50,000 $ 10,000
Shop Supplies $ - $ 6,000
Sand & Gravel Supplies $ - $ -
Admin. / Oper. Misc $ 5,000 $ -
Office Supplies $ 500 $ 500
Computer Hardware $ - $ -
Computer Software $ - $ -
Health & Safety Supplies $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Chlorine $ - $ -
Sodium Bisulfite $ - $ -
Aluminum Sulfate $ - $ -
Calcium Hydroxide $ - $ -
Fluoride $ 44,398 $ -
Carbon $ -
Flocculent Aid $ 21,617 $ -
Filter Aid $ 37,905 $ -
Chlorine Dioxide $ - $ -
Carbon Dioxide $ - $ -
Coagulants $ 399,382 $ -
Disinfectants $ 48,789 $ -
Corrosion Control $ 136,672 $ -
Pre Treatment - Chlorite $ 133,701 $ -
Other Chemical Supplies $ 3,000 $ -
Meals- Business, Non Travel $ - $ -
Food & Related Supplies $ - $ -
Educational Programs $ - $ -
Books & Periodicals $ - $ -
Clothing Supplies / Uniforms $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Laboratory Supplies $ - $ -
Other Supplies $ - $ -
Total Supplies and Chemicals $ 893,464 $ 27,000
Total O & M $ 1,640,616 $ 787,772
2014
Budget
Administrative
Personnel
Salaries- Regular $ 266,201
Salaries- OT
Bonuses
Health Insurance $ 36,000
Dental Insurance
PERA $ 36,470
Retirement Contributions / 401K Match $ 7,986
Unemployment Tax $ 532
Social Sec & Medicare $ 3,860
Workers Compensation $ 7,187
Tri-Districts
Soldier Canyon Filter Plant
2014 Budget
Other
Education & Training $ 1,500
Employee Testing $ -
Contract Labor $ -
Other Prof & Tech Services $ -
IT/SCADA Support $ 12,000
Water $ -
Wastewater Services $ -
Storm Drainage Services $ -
Telephone & Internet $ 7,400
Vehicles $ 500
Vehicle Repair $ -
Software Mtn & Support $ -
Maintenance Contracts $ -
Other Repair & Maint $ -
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ -
Copier Rental Services $ -
Mileage $ -
Conference & Travel $ -
Other Employee Travel $ -
Postage & Freight $ -
Dues & Subscription Services $ 2,000
Insurance, Property, Liability $ 65,000
Total Other $ 88,400
Supplies
Motor Fuel & Oil $ 2,000
Vehicle Parts $ -
Admin./Oper. Misc $ 5,000
Office Supplies $ 6,000
Office Equipment $ -
Communication Supplies $ -
Computer Hardware $ -
Computer Software $ -
Health & Safety Supplies $ -
Meals-Business, Non Travel $ -
Food & Related Supplies $ -
Educational Programs $ -
Books & Periodicals $ -
Clothing Supplies $ 750
Other Supplies $ 2,000
Total Supplies $ 15,750
Total Admin $ 525,854
2014 2014
Budget Budget
ICE (SCADA)
Personnel
Salaries-Regular $ - $ -
Salaries-Hourly $ - $ -
Termination Pay $ - $ -
Health Insurance $ - $ -
Dental Insurance $ - $ -
Retirement Contributions $ - $ -
GERP $ - $ -
Social Sec & Medicare $ - $ -
Workers Compensation $ - $ -
Employees Group Life Ins $ - $ -
Long-term Disability $ - $ -
Tri-Districts
Soldier Canyon Filter Plant
2014 Budget
Mileage $ - $ -
Conference & Travel $ - $ -
IT & SCADA Support $ 16,000 $ 20,000
Total Other $ 16,000 $ 20,000
Supplies
Motor Fuel & Oil $ - $ -
Health & Safety Supplies $ - $ -
Meals- Business, Non Travel $ - $ -
Food & Related Supplies $ - $ -
Other Supplies $ - $ -
Total Supplies $ - $ -
Total ICE $ 16,000 $ 20,000
2014
Budget
Personnel
Wages - Permanent $ 84,627
Salaries-Hourly $ -
Termination Pay $ -
Health Insurance $ 12,000
Dental Insurance $ -
Retirement Contributions / 401K Match $ 2,539
PERA $ 11,594
Social Sec & Medicare $ 1,227
Workers Compensation $ 2,285
Employees Group Life Ins $ 156
Unemployment Tax $ 169
Total Personnel $ 114,597
Other
Education & Training $ 500
Contract Lab / UCMR 3 $ 37,000
Vehicle Repair $ -
Hardware Mtn & Support $ -
Software Mtn & Support $ -
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ -
Mileage $ -
Conference & Travel $ -
IT & SCADA Support $ -
Total Other $ 37,500
Supplies
Motor Fuel & Oil $ -
Office Supplies $ 500
Lab Supplies $ 12,000
Uniforms $ 250
Other Supplies $ -
Total Supplies $ 12,750
Total Lab / Regulatory $ 314,847
Total Budget $ 4,122,843
Add: Lab for City $ -
Less: Source of Supply for SCFP $ (230,000)
Less: Water Resources for SCFP $ (322,534)
Total Adjusted Budget (excl. Water
Resources and Source of Supply) $ 3,570,309
C - 13
Demand Assumptions
Organization
Approximate
Peak Demands in
Last 5 Years
(MGD)
Projected Peak
Day Demand in
30 Years (MGD)
Projected Peak
Day Demand at
Build-out (MGD)
Approximate
Year of Build-out
(e.g., Peak
Demand)
FCLWD 21.70 46.00 46.00 2040
ELCO 9.78 15.60 22.37 ?
NWCWD 14.10 36.30 52.00 >40 years
City 46.77 62.55 63.75 2055
Total 92.4 160.5 184.1
Load Factor = Avg. Daily Demand / Max Daily Demand
Entity FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City
Avg. Daily Demand (MGD) 7.548 3.070 6.840 23.927
Max Daily Demand (MGD) 21.700 9.783 14.100 46.769
Load Factor 0.348 0.314 0.485 0.512
City of Fort Collins Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max Year
Max Daily Demand 37.10 40.77 39.75 46.77 42.95 46.77 2012
Annual Demand 7,391 7,830 7,621 8,757 7,560 8,757
Avg Daily Demand 20.25 21.45 20.88 23.93 20.71 23.93
FCLWD Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max Year
Max Daily Demand 17.30 18.80 19.80 20.20 21.70 21.70 2013
Annual Demand 2,437 2,877 2,946 3,411 2,755 2,755
Avg Daily Demand 6.68 7.88 8.07 9.32 7.55 7.55
ELCO Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max Year
Max Daily Demand 6.96 8.73 9.78 8.13 8.58 9.78 2011
Annual Demand 1,119 1,225 1,121 1,408 1,328 1,121
Avg Daily Demand 3.06 3.36 3.07 3.85 3.64 3.07
NWCWD Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max Year
Max Daily Demand 10.01 12.00 13.20 13.10 14.10 14.10 2013
Annual Demand 2,097 2,309 2,567 2,760 2,497 2,497
Avg Daily Demand 5.75 6.33 7.03 7.54 6.84 6.84
SCFP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max
Annual Demand (MG) 5653 6411 6634 7579 6579 7579
Avg Daily Demand 15.49 17.56 18.18 20.76 18.03 20.76
FCLWD % of Annual Demand 0.43 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.42 0.45
ELCO % of Annual Demand 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.20
NWCWD % of Annual Demand 0.37 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.39
C - 14
Peak Demand - MGD
Year FCLWD (1) ELCO (2) NWCWD (3) City (4) Total
Demand
2013 21.7 9.8 14.1 46.8 92.4
2014 23.0 10.0 14.5 46.8 94.3
2015 24.3 10.1 15.0 47.6 97.0
2016 25.6 10.3 15.4 48.4 99.7
2017 26.8 10.5 15.9 49.2 102.4
2018 28.1 10.7 16.3 50.0 105.1
2019 29.4 10.9 16.8 50.8 107.9
2020 30.7 11.1 17.3 51.6 110.7
2021 32.0 11.2 17.9 52.3 113.4
2022 33.3 11.4 18.4 53.0 116.1
2023 34.6 11.6 18.9 53.7 118.8
2024 35.8 11.8 19.5 54.4 121.5
2025 36.5 12.0 20.1 55.1 123.7
2026 37.1 12.1 20.7 55.6 125.6
2027 37.7 12.3 21.3 56.2 127.5
2028 38.4 12.5 22.0 56.7 129.5
2029 39.0 12.7 22.6 57.2 131.5
2030 39.6 12.9 23.3 57.7 133.5
2031 40.3 13.1 24.0 58.1 135.4
2032 40.9 13.2 24.7 58.4 137.3
2033 41.5 13.4 25.5 58.8 139.3
2034 42.2 13.6 26.2 59.2 141.2
2035 42.8 13.8 27.0 59.6 143.2
2036 43.5 14.0 27.8 59.9 145.2
2037 44.1 14.1 28.7 60.3 147.2
2038 44.7 14.3 29.5 60.7 149.3
2039 45.4 14.5 30.4 61.0 151.3
2040 46.0 14.7 31.3 61.4 153.4
2041 46.0 14.9 32.3 61.6 154.8
2042 46.0 15.1 33.2 61.9 156.2
2043 46.0 15.2 34.2 62.1 157.6
2044 46.0 15.4 35.3 62.3 159.0
2045 46.0 15.6 36.3 62.6 160.5
2046 46.0 15.8 37.4 62.7 161.9
2047 46.0 15.9 38.5 62.9 163.3
2048 46.0 16.1 39.7 63.0 164.8
2049 46.0 16.3 40.9 63.2 166.3
2050 46.0 16.5 42.1 63.3 167.9
2051 46.0 16.6 43.4 63.4 169.4
2052 46.0 16.8 44.7 63.5 171.0
2053 46.0 17.0 46.0 63.6 172.6
2054 46.0 17.1 47.4 63.7 174.2
2055 46.0 17.3 48.8 63.8 175.9
(2) Peak-day demand of 15.60 in 2045 provided by ELCO staff per April 28, 2014 email to RWCC members.
(3) Peak-day demand of 36.30 in 2045 and 48.80 in 2055 provided by NWCWD per April 30, 2014 email to RWCC members.
(4) Annual peak-day demand projections provided by the City per April 29, 2014 email to RWCC members.
Cells in blue are hard coded. All other cells are interpolated from the blue cells.
(1) Peak-day demand of 46.0 MGD projected to occur in 2040 per January 14, 2014 memo
C - 15
Annual Demand - MG
Year FCLWD (1) ELCO (2) NWCWD (1) City (2)
SCFP Total
Annual
Demand
(MG)
2013 2,755 1,466 2,497 8,757 6,718
2014 2,918 1,509 2,571 8,763 6,999
2015 3,081 1,553 2,649 8,912 7,283
2016 3,244 1,597 2,728 9,060 7,570
2017 3,407 1,641 2,810 9,209 7,859
2018 3,571 1,686 2,894 9,358 8,151
2019 3,734 1,730 2,981 9,506 8,445
2020 3,897 1,775 3,071 9,655 8,742
2021 4,060 1,820 3,163 9,789 9,042
2022 4,223 1,865 3,257 9,923 9,345
2023 4,386 1,910 3,355 10,057 9,651
2024 4,548 1,954 3,456 10,190 9,958
2025 4,629 1,999 3,560 10,324 10,187
2026 4,709 2,044 3,666 10,420 10,419
2027 4,790 2,088 3,776 10,515 10,654
2028 4,871 2,132 3,890 10,610 10,893
2029 4,952 2,176 4,006 10,705 11,134
2030 5,032 2,220 4,126 10,801 11,379
2031 5,113 2,263 4,250 10,872 11,627
2032 5,194 2,306 4,378 10,943 11,878
2033 5,275 2,349 4,509 11,014 12,132
2034 5,355 2,391 4,644 11,085 12,391
2035 5,436 2,433 4,784 11,156 12,652
2036 5,517 2,474 4,927 11,224 12,918
2037 5,598 2,514 5,075 11,293 13,187
2038 5,678 2,555 5,227 11,362 13,460
2039 5,759 2,594 5,384 11,431 13,737
2040 5,840 2,633 5,546 11,500 14,019
2041 5,840 2,671 5,712 11,543 14,223
2042 5,840 2,709 5,883 11,585 14,432
2043 5,840 2,746 6,060 11,628 14,646
2044 5,840 2,783 6,242 11,670 14,864
2045 5,840 2,818 6,429 11,713 15,087
2046 5,840 2,853 6,622 11,741 15,315
2047 5,840 2,887 6,820 11,770 15,548
2048 5,840 2,921 7,025 11,798 15,786
2049 5,840 2,954 7,236 11,827 16,030
2050 5,840 2,986 7,453 11,855 16,279
2051 5,840 3,017 7,677 11,873 16,534
2052 5,840 3,048 7,907 11,891 16,794
2053 5,840 3,078 8,144 11,910 17,061
2054 5,840 3,107 8,388 11,928 17,335
2055 5,840 3,135 8,640 11,946 17,615
(2) Annual demands provided by the ELCO and City.
Cells in blue are hard coded. All other cells are interpolated from the blue cells.
(1) Annual demands projected based on Max Daily Demand multiplied by
historical load factor and 365 days per year.
C - 16
Peaking Factor
Year FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City
2013 2.88 2.44 2.06 1.95
2014 2.88 2.41 2.06 1.95
2015 2.88 2.38 2.06 1.95
2016 2.88 2.36 2.06 1.95
2017 2.88 2.34 2.06 1.95
2018 2.88 2.31 2.06 1.95
2019 2.88 2.29 2.06 1.95
2020 2.88 2.27 2.06 1.95
2021 2.88 2.25 2.06 1.95
2022 2.88 2.24 2.06 1.95
2023 2.88 2.22 2.06 1.95
2024 2.88 2.20 2.06 1.95
2025 2.88 2.18 2.06 1.95
2026 2.88 2.17 2.06 1.95
2027 2.88 2.15 2.06 1.95
2028 2.88 2.14 2.06 1.95
2029 2.88 2.13 2.06 1.95
2030 2.88 2.12 2.06 1.95
2031 2.88 2.11 2.06 1.95
2032 2.88 2.10 2.06 1.95
2033 2.88 2.09 2.06 1.95
2034 2.88 2.08 2.06 1.95
2035 2.88 2.07 2.06 1.95
2036 2.88 2.06 2.06 1.95
2037 2.88 2.05 2.06 1.95
2038 2.88 2.05 2.06 1.95
2039 2.88 2.04 2.06 1.95
2040 2.88 2.04 2.06 1.95
2041 2.88 2.03 2.06 1.95
2042 2.88 2.03 2.06 1.95
2043 2.88 2.03 2.06 1.95
2044 2.88 2.02 2.06 1.95
2045 2.88 2.02 2.06 1.95
2046 2.88 2.02 2.06 1.95
2047 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2048 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2049 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2050 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2051 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2052 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2053 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2054 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
2055 2.88 2.01 2.06 1.95
C - 17
Appendix D
Status Quo and
Collaboration Annual
Costs and Net Present
Value
Table 1
Proforma - East Larimer County Water District
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Line
No. Description FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
3 Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative) $ 280,128 $ 288,241 $ 296,734 $ 305,607 $ 314,860 $ 324,494 $ 334,510 $ 344,909 $ 355,695 $ 428,084
5 Chemicals 183,077 188,380 193,931 199,730 205,777 212,073 218,619 225,415 232,464 279,774
6 Energy 26,453 27,220 28,022 28,860 29,733 30,643 31,589 32,571 33,590 40,425
7 Administrative 102,655 105,628 108,741 111,992 115,383 118,913 122,584 126,395 130,347 156,875
8 Legal 13,973 14,377 14,801 15,244 15,705 16,186 16,685 17,204 17,742 21,353
9 All Other 75,729 77,923 80,219 82,617 85,119 87,723 90,431 93,242 96,158 115,727
10 Minor Capital 109,833 113,014 116,345 119,824 123,452 127,229 131,156 135,233 139,462 167,845
11 Additional O&M to the City - - - - - - - - - -
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo) - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service
13 Debt Service - - - - - 284,993 284,993 284,993 284,993 402,815
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment) 323,990 111,922 239,760 695,585 732,330 121,222 123,762 126,382 129,081 131,878
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins - - - - - - - - - -
17 Total Revenue Requirements $ 1,115,839 $ 926,704 $ 1,078,552 $ 1,559,458 $ 1,622,359 $ 1,323,475 $ 1,354,327 $ 1,386,345 $ 1,419,532 $ 1,744,775
18 Net Revenue / (Costs) (1,115,839) (926,704) (1,078,552) (1,559,458) (1,622,359) (1,323,475) (1,354,327) (1,386,345) (1,419,532) (1,744,775)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045) $ (75,957,614)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045) $32,972,374
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
D - 1
Table 1
Proforma - East Larimer County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 445,148 $ 462,733 $ 480,847 $ 499,498 $ 518,691 $ 538,433 $ 558,731 $ 579,591 $ 601,018 $ 623,020
290,926 302,419 314,258 326,447 338,990 351,893 365,158 378,791 392,795 407,174
42,037 43,698 45,408 47,169 48,982 50,846 52,763 54,733 56,756 58,834
163,128 169,572 176,211 183,045 190,078 197,313 204,752 212,396 220,248 228,311
22,204 23,081 23,984 24,915 25,872 26,857 27,869 28,910 29,978 31,076
120,340 125,094 129,991 135,033 140,222 145,559 151,046 156,686 162,478 168,426
174,535 181,430 188,532 195,845 203,370 211,111 219,069 227,248 235,649 244,276
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
402,815 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722
- - - - - - - - - -
135,816 - 143,900 148,044 152,255 156,530 160,869 165,270 169,733 174,254
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 1,796,949 $ 2,512,749 $ 2,707,854 $ 2,764,718 $ 2,823,182 $ 2,883,263 $ 2,944,980 $ 3,008,346 $ 3,073,379 $ 3,140,092
(1,796,949) (2,512,749) (2,707,854) (2,764,718) (2,823,182) (2,883,263) (2,944,980) (3,008,346) (3,073,379) (3,140,092)
D - 2
Table 1
Proforma - East Larimer County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ - $ - $ 1,204,722 $ 1,204,722 $ 1,204,722 $ 919,729 $ 919,729 $ 919,729 $ 919,729 $ 801,907 $ 801,907
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ 1,204,722 $ 1,204,722 $ 1,204,722 $ 919,729 $ 919,729 $ 919,729 $ 919,729 $ 801,907 $ 801,907
$ 753,200 $ 780,225 $ 807,937 $ 836,342 $ 865,446 $ 895,252 $ 931,023 $ 1,128,988 $ 1,172,847 $ 1,217,773 $ 1,263,767
492,253 509,916 528,027 546,591 565,612 585,092 608,470 737,850 766,514 795,875 825,934
71,127 73,679 76,296 78,979 81,727 84,542 87,920 106,614 110,756 114,999 119,342
276,016 285,920 296,075 306,485 317,150 328,073 341,181 413,727 429,799 446,263 463,118
37,569 38,917 40,299 41,716 43,168 44,655 46,439 56,313 58,501 60,742 63,036
203,619 210,925 218,416 226,095 233,963 242,021 251,691 305,209 317,065 329,211 341,645
295,317 305,913 316,779 327,916 339,327 351,014 365,039 442,658 459,854 477,469 495,502
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 1,204,722 919,729 919,729 919,729 919,729 801,907 801,907
- - - - - - - - - - -
178,833 183,469 188,158 192,901 197,694 202,537 208,604 214,738 220,935 227,192 233,506
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 3,512,657 $ 3,593,685 $ 3,676,710 $ 3,761,747 $ 3,848,809 $ 3,652,914 $ 3,760,097 $ 4,325,826 $ 4,456,001 $ 4,471,429 $ 4,607,756
(3,512,657) (3,593,685) (2,471,988) (2,557,025) (2,644,087) (2,733,185) (2,840,368) (3,406,097) (3,536,272) (3,669,522) (3,805,849)
D - 3
Table 7
Proforma - PIF Fund - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 3,271,679 $ 3,369,830 $ 3,470,925 $ 3,575,052 $ 5,531,358 $ 5,697,298 $ 5,868,217 $ 5,984,161
$ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 3,271,679 $ 3,369,830 $ 3,470,925 $ 3,575,052 $ 5,531,358 $ 5,697,298 $ 5,868,217 $ 5,984,161
- 3,083,872 - - - 10,053,045 - - - 23,907,702
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ 3,083,872 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,053,045 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,907,702
$ 3,083,872 $ 92,516 $ 3,271,679 $ 3,369,830 $ 3,470,925 $ (6,477,992) $ 5,531,358 $ 5,697,298 $ 5,868,217 $ (17,923,541)
$ - $ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 6,448,067 $ 9,817,897 $ 13,288,821 $ 6,810,829 $ 12,342,186 $ 18,039,485 $ 23,907,702
$ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 6,448,067 $ 9,817,897 $ 13,288,821 $ 6,810,829 $ 12,342,186 $ 18,039,485 $ 23,907,702 $ 5,984,161
D - 4
Table 7
Proforma - PIF Fund - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ 3,081,843 $ 3,174,298 $ 3,269,527 $ 3,367,613 $ 3,468,641 $ 3,572,701 $ 3,679,882 $ 3,790,278 $ 3,903,986 $ 4,021,106
$ 3,081,843 $ 3,174,298 $ 3,269,527 $ 3,367,613 $ 3,468,641 $ 3,572,701 $ 3,679,882 $ 3,790,278 $ 3,903,986 $ 4,021,106
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506
$ - $ - $ - $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506
$ 3,081,843 $ 3,174,298 $ 3,269,527 $ 611,107 $ 712,135 $ 816,195 $ 923,376 $ 1,033,772 $ 1,147,480 $ 1,264,600
$ 5,984,161 $ 9,066,004 $ 12,240,302 $ 15,509,829 $ 16,120,936 $ 16,833,072 $ 17,649,266 $ 18,572,642 $ 19,606,414 $ 20,753,895
$ 9,066,004 $ 12,240,302 $ 15,509,829 $ 16,120,936 $ 16,833,072 $ 17,649,266 $ 18,572,642 $ 19,606,414 $ 20,753,895 $ 22,018,495
D - 5
Table 7
Proforma - PIF Fund - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 4,141,739 $ 4,265,991 $ 4,393,971 $ 4,525,790 $ 4,661,564 $ 4,801,411 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 4,141,739 $ 4,265,991 $ 4,393,971 $ 4,525,790 $ 4,661,564 $ 4,801,411 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
19,533,093 - - - - - - - - - -
2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 1,847,900 1,847,900
$ 22,289,599 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 1,847,900 $ 1,847,900
$ (18,147,860) $ 1,509,485 $ 1,637,465 $ 1,769,284 $ 1,905,058 $ 2,044,905 $ (2,756,506) $ (2,756,506) $ (2,756,506) $ (1,847,900) $ (1,847,900)
$ 22,018,495 $ 3,870,635 $ 5,380,120 $ 7,017,585 $ 8,786,870 $ 10,691,928 $ 12,736,833 $ 9,980,327 $ 7,223,821 $ 4,467,315 $ 2,619,415
$ 3,870,635 $ 5,380,120 $ 7,017,585 $ 8,786,870 $ 10,691,928 $ 12,736,833 $ 9,980,327 $ 7,223,821 $ 4,467,315 $ 2,619,415 $ 771,515
D - 6
Table 2
Proforma - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Line
No. Description FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
3 Total Revenues - - - - - - - - - -
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative) $ 555,727 $ 585,517 $ 616,021 $ 647,295 $ 679,391 $ 712,362 $ 746,259 $ 781,133 $ 817,034 $ 996,154
5 Chemicals 363,195 382,664 402,600 423,039 444,016 465,564 487,717 510,509 533,972 651,036
6 Energy 52,479 55,292 58,173 61,126 64,157 67,271 70,472 73,765 77,155 94,070
7 Administrative 203,651 214,567 225,746 237,206 248,968 261,051 273,473 286,253 299,409 365,049
8 Legal 27,719 29,205 30,727 32,287 33,888 35,532 37,223 38,962 40,753 49,688
9 All Other 150,234 158,288 166,534 174,989 183,665 192,579 201,742 211,170 220,876 269,299
10 Minor Capital 217,891 229,571 241,532 253,794 266,378 279,305 292,596 306,269 320,346 390,576
11 Additional O&M to the City 438,479 611,526 797,219 991,968 1,161,092 1,342,158 1,395,844 1,451,678 1,509,745 1,570,135
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo) - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service
13 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 908,606
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service 747,861 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment) $ 642,743 $ 227,351 $ 497,743 $ 1,473,291 $ 1,580,188 $ 266,118 $ 276,101 $ 286,224 $ 296,501 $ 306,880
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins - 1,855,123 - - - - - - - 2,744,391
17 Total Revenue Requirements $ 3,399,979 $ 5,658,224 $ 4,345,414 $ 5,604,114 $ 5,970,863 $ 4,931,060 $ 5,090,547 $ 5,255,084 $ 5,424,910 $ 9,655,004
18 Net Revenue / (Costs) $ (3,399,979) $ (5,658,224) $ (4,345,414) $ (5,604,114) $ (5,970,863) $ (4,931,060) $ (5,090,547) $ (5,255,084) $ (5,424,910) $ (9,655,004)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045) $ (233,646,741)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045) $106,253,401
Status Quo Scenario
RWCC
D - 7
Table 2
Proforma - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
Status Quo Scenario
RWCC
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506
$ 996,154 $ 1,030,681 $ 1,066,314 $ 1,103,087 $ 1,141,037 $ 1,180,199 $ 1,220,608 $ 1,262,304 $ 1,305,323 $ 1,349,704 $ 1,395,487
651,036 673,601 696,889 720,923 745,724 771,318 797,728 824,978 853,093 882,099 912,020
94,070 97,331 100,696 104,168 107,752 111,450 115,266 119,204 123,266 127,457 131,781
365,049 377,702 390,759 404,236 418,142 432,493 447,302 462,582 478,346 494,610 511,388
49,688 51,410 53,187 55,021 56,914 58,868 60,883 62,963 65,109 67,322 69,606
269,299 278,633 288,265 298,207 308,466 319,053 329,977 341,249 352,879 364,877 377,254
390,576 404,113 418,084 432,502 447,382 462,736 478,581 494,929 511,796 529,197 547,147
1,570,135 1,632,941 1,698,258 1,766,188 1,836,836 1,910,309 1,986,722 2,066,191 2,148,838 2,234,792 2,324,184
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 908,606 $ 908,606 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506
1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 1,309,120 561,259 561,259
$ 306,880 $ 314,464 $ - $ 330,114 $ 338,188 $ 346,431 $ 354,848 $ 363,441 $ 372,213 $ 381,168 $ 390,308
2,744,391 - - - - - - - - - -
$ 9,655,004 $ 7,078,600 $ 8,778,079 $ 9,280,073 $ 9,466,068 $ 9,658,484 $ 9,857,541 $ 10,063,465 $ 10,276,489 $ 9,748,991 $ 9,976,938
$ (9,655,004) $ (7,078,600) $ (8,778,079) $ (9,280,073) $ (6,709,562) $ (6,901,978) $ (7,101,035) $ (7,306,959) $ (7,519,983) $ (6,992,485) $ (7,220,432)
D - 8
Table 2
Proforma - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
Status Quo Scenario
RWCC
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 1,847,900 $ 1,847,900
- - - - - - - - - - - -
2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 1,847,900 1,847,900
$ 1,395,487 $ 1,683,162 $ 1,739,986 $ 1,798,585 $ 1,859,010 $ 1,921,309 $ 1,985,531 $ 2,035,233 $ 2,433,645 $ 2,494,089 $ 2,555,783 $ 2,618,740
912,020 1,100,030 1,137,167 1,175,465 1,214,955 1,255,671 1,297,643 1,330,126 1,590,508 1,630,011 1,670,331 1,711,477
131,781 158,947 164,313 169,847 175,553 181,436 187,501 192,194 229,818 235,526 241,352 247,297
511,388 616,809 637,632 659,106 681,249 704,079 727,614 745,828 891,829 913,980 936,588 959,659
69,606 83,955 86,789 89,712 92,726 95,834 99,037 101,516 121,389 124,404 127,481 130,621
377,254 455,023 470,385 486,226 502,562 519,403 536,765 550,201 657,908 674,248 690,926 707,946
547,147 659,940 682,220 705,196 728,887 753,314 778,494 797,981 954,192 977,891 1,002,080 1,026,765
2,324,184 2,417,151 2,513,837 2,614,390 2,718,966 2,827,725 2,940,834 3,058,467 3,180,806 3,308,038 3,440,359 3,577,974
- - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 1,847,900 $ 1,847,900
561,259 561,259 - - - - - - - - - -
$ 390,308 $ 399,636 $ 409,155 $ 418,868 $ 428,777 $ 438,885 $ 449,195 $ 456,012 $ 462,888 $ 469,824 $ 476,816 $ 483,864
- - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 9,976,938 $ 10,892,419 $ 10,597,990 $ 10,873,902 $ 11,159,192 $ 11,454,161 $ 11,759,120 $ 12,024,064 $ 13,279,490 $ 13,584,516 $ 12,989,616 $ 13,312,241
$ (7,220,432) $ (8,135,913) $ (7,841,484) $ (8,117,396) $ (8,402,686) $ (8,697,655) $ (9,002,614) $ (9,267,558) $ (10,522,984) $ (10,828,010) $ (11,141,716) $ (11,464,341)
D - 9
Table 7
Proforma - PIF Fund - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 3,271,679 $ 3,369,830 $ 3,470,925 $ 3,575,052 $ 5,531,358 $ 5,697,298 $ 5,868,217 $ 5,984,161
$ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 3,271,679 $ 3,369,830 $ 3,470,925 $ 3,575,052 $ 5,531,358 $ 5,697,298 $ 5,868,217 $ 5,984,161
- 3,083,872 - - - 10,053,045 - - - 23,907,702
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ 3,083,872 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,053,045 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,907,702
$ 3,083,872 $ 92,516 $ 3,271,679 $ 3,369,830 $ 3,470,925 $ (6,477,992) $ 5,531,358 $ 5,697,298 $ 5,868,217 $ (17,923,541)
$ - $ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 6,448,067 $ 9,817,897 $ 13,288,821 $ 6,810,829 $ 12,342,186 $ 18,039,485 $ 23,907,702
$ 3,083,872 $ 3,176,388 $ 6,448,067 $ 9,817,897 $ 13,288,821 $ 6,810,829 $ 12,342,186 $ 18,039,485 $ 23,907,702 $ 5,984,161
D - 10
Table 7
Proforma - PIF Fund - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ 3,081,843 $ 3,174,298 $ 3,269,527 $ 3,367,613 $ 3,468,641 $ 3,572,701 $ 3,679,882 $ 3,790,278 $ 3,903,986 $ 4,021,106
$ 3,081,843 $ 3,174,298 $ 3,269,527 $ 3,367,613 $ 3,468,641 $ 3,572,701 $ 3,679,882 $ 3,790,278 $ 3,903,986 $ 4,021,106
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506
$ - $ - $ - $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506
$ 3,081,843 $ 3,174,298 $ 3,269,527 $ 611,107 $ 712,135 $ 816,195 $ 923,376 $ 1,033,772 $ 1,147,480 $ 1,264,600
$ 5,984,161 $ 9,066,004 $ 12,240,302 $ 15,509,829 $ 16,120,936 $ 16,833,072 $ 17,649,266 $ 18,572,642 $ 19,606,414 $ 20,753,895
$ 9,066,004 $ 12,240,302 $ 15,509,829 $ 16,120,936 $ 16,833,072 $ 17,649,266 $ 18,572,642 $ 19,606,414 $ 20,753,895 $ 22,018,495
D - 11
Table 7
Proforma - PIF Fund - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 4,141,739 $ 4,265,991 $ 4,393,971 $ 4,525,790 $ 4,661,564 $ 4,801,411 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 4,141,739 $ 4,265,991 $ 4,393,971 $ 4,525,790 $ 4,661,564 $ 4,801,411 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
19,533,093 - - - - - - - - - -
2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 2,756,506 1,847,900 1,847,900
$ 22,289,599 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 2,756,506 $ 1,847,900 $ 1,847,900
$ (18,147,860) $ 1,509,485 $ 1,637,465 $ 1,769,284 $ 1,905,058 $ 2,044,905 $ (2,756,506) $ (2,756,506) $ (2,756,506) $ (1,847,900) $ (1,847,900)
$ 22,018,495 $ 3,870,635 $ 5,380,120 $ 7,017,585 $ 8,786,870 $ 10,691,928 $ 12,736,833 $ 9,980,327 $ 7,223,821 $ 4,467,315 $ 2,619,415
$ 3,870,635 $ 5,380,120 $ 7,017,585 $ 8,786,870 $ 10,691,928 $ 12,736,833 $ 9,980,327 $ 7,223,821 $ 4,467,315 $ 2,619,415 $ 771,515
D - 12
Table 3
Proforma - North Weld County Water District
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Line
No. Description FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Revenue
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
3 Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative) 477,715 492,354 508,001 524,685 542,439 561,302 581,315 602,525 624,981 756,983
5 Chemicals 312,210 321,778 332,004 342,907 354,511 366,839 379,918 393,780 408,456 494,726
6 Energy 45,112 46,495 47,972 49,548 51,224 53,006 54,896 56,899 59,019 71,485
7 Administrative 175,062 180,427 186,161 192,275 198,781 205,694 213,028 220,800 229,029 277,403
8 Legal 23,828 24,558 25,339 26,171 27,057 27,997 28,996 30,054 31,174 37,758
9 All Other 129,145 133,102 137,332 141,842 146,642 151,741 157,152 162,886 168,956 204,642
10 Minor Capital 187,304 193,044 199,179 205,720 212,681 220,077 227,924 236,240 245,045 296,801
11 Additional O&M to the City - - - 740,275 769,886 800,681 832,708 866,017 900,657 936,684
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo) - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service
13 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 510,453 $ 510,453 $ 510,453 $ 510,453 $ 510,453
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service - - - 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment) $ 552,516 $ 191,177 $ 410,463 $ 1,194,221 $ 1,261,653 $ 209,686 $ 215,075 $ 220,778 $ 226,805 $ 233,200
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins - - - 1,956,086 - - - - - -
17 Total Revenue Requirements $ 1,902,893 $ 1,582,936 $ 1,846,451 $ 5,931,562 $ 4,122,706 $ 3,665,308 $ 3,759,297 $ 3,858,264 $ 3,962,408 $ 4,377,966
18 Net Revenue / (Costs) $ (1,902,893) $ (1,582,936) $ (1,846,451) $ (5,931,562) $ (4,122,706) $ (3,665,308) $ (3,759,297) $ (3,858,264) $ (3,962,408) $ (4,377,966)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045) (203,560,859)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045) $85,840,651
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
D - 13
Table 3
Proforma - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenue
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
792,642 830,162 869,642 911,185 954,900 1,000,899 1,049,303 1,100,238 1,153,835 1,210,234
518,031 542,552 568,354 595,505 624,075 654,137 685,772 719,060 754,089 790,948
74,852 78,395 82,123 86,046 90,175 94,518 99,089 103,899 108,961 114,287
290,470 304,220 318,688 333,911 349,931 366,788 384,526 403,191 422,832 443,500
39,536 41,408 43,377 45,449 47,630 49,924 52,339 54,879 57,553 60,366
214,281 224,425 235,098 246,328 258,146 270,581 283,667 297,437 311,926 327,173
310,782 325,493 340,972 357,261 374,401 392,436 411,415 431,385 452,400 474,513
974,151 1,013,117 1,053,642 1,095,788 1,139,619 1,185,204 1,232,612 1,281,916 1,333,193 1,386,521
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 510,453 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106
557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833 557,833
$ 241,837 $ - $ 260,252 $ 270,063 $ 280,298 $ 290,975 $ 302,114 $ 313,733 $ 325,853 $ 338,494
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 4,524,867 $ 5,866,710 $ 6,279,088 $ 6,448,476 $ 6,626,112 $ 6,812,403 $ 7,007,776 $ 7,212,678 $ 7,427,580 $ 7,652,973
$ (4,524,867) $ (5,866,710) $ (6,279,088) $ (6,448,476) $ (6,626,112) $ (6,812,403) $ (7,007,776) $ (7,212,678) $ (7,427,580) $ (7,652,973)
D - 14
Table 3
Proforma - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenue
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service - Status Quo
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208
1,481,176 1,554,029 1,630,687 1,711,345 1,796,211 1,885,500 1,990,679 2,451,781 2,588,055 2,731,636 2,882,892
968,022 1,015,635 1,065,735 1,118,449 1,173,913 1,232,268 1,301,008 1,602,361 1,691,423 1,785,260 1,884,113
139,873 146,752 153,992 161,608 169,623 178,054 187,987 231,530 244,399 257,958 272,242
542,789 569,487 597,579 627,137 658,236 690,957 729,501 898,475 948,414 1,001,030 1,056,460
73,880 77,514 81,338 85,361 89,594 94,048 99,294 122,293 129,091 136,252 143,797
400,419 420,114 440,837 462,642 485,585 509,723 538,157 662,810 699,651 738,466 779,356
580,745 609,309 639,366 670,990 704,265 739,274 780,513 961,303 1,014,734 1,071,030 1,130,335
1,441,982 1,499,661 1,559,647 1,622,033 1,686,915 1,754,391 1,824,567 1,897,549 1,973,451 2,052,390 2,134,485
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,949,106 $ 1,438,654 $ 1,438,654 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208
557,833 557,833 557,833 - - - - - - - -
$ 351,678 $ 365,428 $ 379,767 $ 394,719 $ 410,309 $ 426,564 $ 446,029 $ 466,338 $ 487,524 $ 509,624 $ 532,671
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 8,487,502 $ 8,764,869 $ 9,055,885 $ 8,803,392 $ 9,123,757 $ 8,949,434 $ 9,336,387 $ 11,664,650 $ 12,146,951 $ 12,653,853 $ 13,186,559
$ (8,487,502) $ (8,764,869) $ (9,055,885) $ (8,803,392) $ (9,123,757) $ (8,949,434) $ (9,336,387) $ (9,294,442) $ (9,776,743) $ (10,283,645) $ (10,816,351)
D - 15
Table 8
Proforma - PIF Fund - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ 1,045,612 $ 1,109,290 $ 1,176,846 $ 1,248,516 $ 1,324,551 $ 1,405,216 $ 2,239,389 $ 2,375,768 $ 2,520,452 $ 2,673,948
$ 1,045,612 $ 1,109,290 $ 1,176,846 $ 1,248,516 $ 1,324,551 $ 1,405,216 $ 2,239,389 $ 2,375,768 $ 2,520,452 $ 2,673,948
- - - 3,331,749 - 2,573,066 - - - 4,703,707
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ 3,331,749 $ - $ 2,573,066 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,703,707
$ 1,045,612 $ 1,109,290 $ 1,176,846 $ (2,083,233) $ 1,324,551 $ (1,167,851) $ 2,239,389 $ 2,375,768 $ 2,520,452 $ (2,029,760)
$ - $ 1,045,612 $ 2,154,903 $ 3,331,749 $ 1,248,516 $ 2,573,066 $ 1,405,216 $ 3,644,605 $ 6,020,373 $ 8,540,825
$ 1,045,612 $ 2,154,903 $ 3,331,749 $ 1,248,516 $ 2,573,066 $ 1,405,216 $ 3,644,605 $ 6,020,373 $ 8,540,825 $ 6,511,065
D - 16
Table 8
Proforma - PIF Fund - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ 2,836,791 $ 3,009,552 $ 3,192,833 $ 3,387,277 $ 3,593,562 $ 3,812,410 $ 4,044,586 $ 4,290,901 $ 4,552,217 $ 4,829,447
$ 2,836,791 $ 3,009,552 $ 3,192,833 $ 3,387,277 $ 3,593,562 $ 3,812,410 $ 4,044,586 $ 4,290,901 $ 4,552,217 $ 4,829,447
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 2,836,791 $ 3,009,552 $ 3,192,833 $ 3,387,277 $ 3,593,562 $ 3,812,410 $ 4,044,586 $ 4,290,901 $ 4,552,217 $ 4,829,447
$ 6,511,065 $ 9,347,856 $ 12,357,408 $ 15,550,241 $ 18,937,518 $ 22,531,080 $ 26,343,490 $ 30,388,076 $ 34,678,977 $ 39,231,194
$ 9,347,856 $ 12,357,408 $ 15,550,241 $ 18,937,518 $ 22,531,080 $ 26,343,490 $ 30,388,076 $ 34,678,977 $ 39,231,194 $ 44,060,641
D - 17
Table 8
Proforma - PIF Fund - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 5,123,560 $ 5,435,585 $ 5,766,612 $ 6,117,799 $ 6,490,373 $ 6,885,637 $ 7,304,972 $ 7,749,845 $ 8,221,810 $ 8,722,518 $ 9,253,720
$ 5,123,560 $ 5,435,585 $ 5,766,612 $ 6,117,799 $ 6,490,373 $ 6,885,637 $ 7,304,972 $ 7,749,845 $ 8,221,810 $ 8,722,518 $ 9,253,720
39,066,186 - - - - - - 48,118,993 - - -
- - - - - - - 2,370,208 2,370,208 2,370,208 2,370,208
$ 39,066,186 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,489,201 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208 $ 2,370,208
$ (33,942,626) $ 5,435,585 $ 5,766,612 $ 6,117,799 $ 6,490,373 $ 6,885,637 $ 7,304,972 $ (42,739,356) $ 5,851,602 $ 6,352,310 $ 6,883,512
$ 44,060,641 $ 10,118,015 $ 15,553,600 $ 21,320,213 $ 27,438,012 $ 33,928,384 $ 40,814,021 $ 48,118,993 $ 5,379,637 $ 11,231,239 $ 17,583,549
$ 10,118,015 $ 15,553,600 $ 21,320,213 $ 27,438,012 $ 33,928,384 $ 40,814,021 $ 48,118,993 $ 5,379,637 $ 11,231,239 $ 17,583,549 $ 24,467,061
D - 18
Table 4
Proforma - City of Ft. Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Capital - Status Quo
2 PIF Revenue - Capacity Sold to Members of Tri-Districts
3 O&M Revenue from Other Entities
4 Regionalization Asset Revenue
5 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
6 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
7 Chemicals
8 Energy
9 Administrative
10 Legal
11 All Other
12 Minor Capital
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
Capital Improvements
14 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
15 Total Revenue Requirements
16 Net Revenue / (Costs)
17 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
18 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ 1,905,653 $ 1,962,823 $ 2,021,707 $ 2,082,359 $ 2,144,829 $ 2,209,174 $ 3,076,251 $ 3,168,539 $ 3,263,595 $ 3,361,503
747,861 3,164,242 1,309,120 3,823,038 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 4,611,344
438,479 611,526 797,219 1,732,243 1,930,978 2,142,839 2,228,553 2,317,695 2,410,403 2,506,819
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 3,091,993 $ 5,738,591 $ 4,128,046 $ 7,637,640 $ 5,942,759 $ 6,218,966 $ 7,171,757 $ 7,353,186 $ 7,540,950 $ 10,479,665
$ 2,379,334 $ 2,474,507 $ 2,573,488 $ 2,676,427 $ 2,783,484 $ 2,894,824 $ 3,010,617 $ 3,131,041 $ 3,256,283 $ 3,386,534
1,295,757 1,347,587 1,401,491 1,457,550 1,515,852 1,576,486 1,639,546 1,705,128 1,773,333 1,844,266
448,864 466,819 485,491 504,911 525,107 546,112 567,956 590,674 614,301 638,873
311,753 324,223 337,192 350,680 364,707 379,295 394,467 410,245 426,655 443,721
56,271 58,522 60,863 63,298 65,829 68,463 71,201 74,049 77,011 80,092
1,677,761 1,744,871 1,814,666 1,887,253 1,962,743 2,041,252 2,122,902 2,207,819 2,296,131 2,387,977
1,677,575 1,744,678 1,814,465 1,887,043 1,962,525 2,041,026 2,122,667 2,207,574 2,295,877 2,387,712
- - - - - - - - - -
12,319,482 9,486,091 12,655,304 5,920,473 7,142,910 3,145,654 1,844,811 1,900,155 1,957,160 2,015,875
$ 20,166,796 $ 17,647,298 $ 21,142,959 $ 14,747,635 $ 16,323,158 $ 12,693,112 $ 11,774,167 $ 12,226,685 $ 12,696,751 $ 13,185,049
$ (17,074,803) $ (11,908,707) $ (17,014,913) $ (7,109,995) $ (10,380,398) $ (6,474,146) $ (4,602,410) $ (4,873,499) $ (5,155,801) $ (2,705,384)
(482,754,196)
$207,891,977
D - 19
Table 4
Proforma - City of Ft. Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Capital - Status Quo
2 PIF Revenue - Capacity Sold to Members of Tri-Districts
3 O&M Revenue from Other Entities
4 Regionalization Asset Revenue
5 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
6 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
7 Chemicals
8 Energy
9 Administrative
10 Legal
11 All Other
12 Minor Capital
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
Capital Improvements
14 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
15 Total Revenue Requirements
16 Net Revenue / (Costs)
17 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
18 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ 3,462,348 $ 2,539,580 $ 2,615,767 $ 2,694,240 $ 2,775,067 $ 2,858,319 $ 2,192,392 $ 2,258,164 $ 2,325,909 $ 2,395,686
1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,866,952 1,119,091 1,119,091
2,607,092 2,711,375 2,819,830 2,932,624 3,049,929 3,171,926 3,298,803 3,430,755 3,567,985 3,710,704
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 7,936,392 $ 7,117,907 $ 7,302,550 $ 7,493,816 $ 7,691,948 $ 7,897,197 $ 7,358,147 $ 7,555,871 $ 7,012,985 $ 7,225,481
$ 3,521,996 $ 3,662,875 $ 3,809,390 $ 3,961,766 $ 4,120,237 $ 4,285,046 $ 4,456,448 $ 4,634,706 $ 4,820,094 $ 5,012,898
1,918,037 1,994,758 2,074,548 2,157,530 2,243,832 2,333,585 2,426,928 2,524,005 2,624,966 2,729,964
664,428 691,006 718,646 747,392 777,287 808,379 840,714 874,342 909,316 945,689
461,470 479,929 499,126 519,091 539,855 561,449 583,907 607,263 631,554 656,816
83,295 86,627 90,092 93,696 97,444 101,341 105,395 109,611 113,995 118,555
2,483,496 2,582,835 2,686,149 2,793,595 2,905,339 3,021,552 3,142,414 3,268,111 3,398,835 3,534,789
2,483,220 2,582,549 2,685,851 2,793,285 2,905,016 3,021,217 3,142,066 3,267,748 3,398,458 3,534,397
- 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596
2,076,351 - 2,202,801 2,268,885 2,336,951 2,407,060 2,479,271 2,553,650 2,630,259 2,709,167
$ 13,692,293 $ 18,107,176 $ 20,793,200 $ 21,361,836 $ 21,952,556 $ 22,566,225 $ 23,203,740 $ 23,866,033 $ 24,554,074 $ 25,268,870
$ (5,755,901) $ (10,989,268) $ (13,490,650) $ (13,868,020) $ (14,260,608) $ (14,669,028) $ (15,845,593) $ (16,310,162) $ (17,541,089) $ (18,043,389)
D - 20
Table 4
Proforma - City of Ft. Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Capital - Status Quo
2 PIF Revenue - Capacity Sold to Members of Tri-Districts
3 O&M Revenue from Other Entities
4 Regionalization Asset Revenue
5 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
6 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
7 Chemicals
8 Energy
9 Administrative
10 Legal
11 All Other
12 Minor Capital
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
Capital Improvements
14 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
15 Total Revenue Requirements
16 Net Revenue / (Costs)
17 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
18 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 2,467,556 $ 2,468,966 $ 2,543,035 $ 2,619,326 $ 2,697,906 $ 2,778,843 $ 1,767,835 $ 1,820,870 $ 1,875,496 $ 1,931,761 $ 1,989,714
1,119,091 557,833 557,833 - - - - - - - -
3,859,133 4,013,498 4,174,038 4,340,999 4,514,639 4,695,225 4,883,034 5,078,355 5,281,489 5,492,749 5,712,459
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 7,445,780 $ 7,040,297 $ 7,274,906 $ 6,960,326 $ 7,212,545 $ 7,474,068 $ 6,650,869 $ 6,899,225 $ 7,156,985 $ 7,424,510 $ 7,702,173
$ 5,213,414 $ 5,421,950 $ 5,638,828 $ 5,864,381 $ 6,098,957 $ 6,342,915 $ 6,596,632 $ 6,860,497 $ 7,134,917 $ 7,420,313 $ 7,717,126
2,839,163 2,952,729 3,070,838 3,193,672 3,321,419 3,454,276 3,592,447 3,736,144 3,885,590 4,041,014 4,202,654
983,516 1,022,857 1,063,771 1,106,322 1,150,575 1,196,598 1,244,462 1,294,240 1,346,010 1,399,850 1,455,844
683,089 710,412 738,829 768,382 799,117 831,082 864,325 898,898 934,854 972,248 1,011,138
123,297 128,229 133,358 138,693 144,241 150,010 156,011 162,251 168,741 175,491 182,510
3,676,180 3,823,227 3,976,156 4,135,203 4,300,611 4,472,635 4,651,541 4,837,602 5,031,106 5,232,351 5,441,645
3,675,772 3,822,803 3,975,716 4,134,744 4,300,134 4,472,139 4,651,025 4,837,066 5,030,548 5,231,770 5,441,041
6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596 6,026,596
2,790,442 2,874,155 2,960,380 3,049,191 3,140,667 3,234,887 3,331,934 3,431,892 3,534,848 3,640,894 3,750,121
$ 26,011,470 $ 26,782,960 $ 27,584,473 $ 28,417,185 $ 29,282,316 $ 30,181,138 $ 31,114,971 $ 32,085,187 $ 33,093,211 $ 34,140,528 $ 35,228,676
$ (18,565,689) $ (19,742,663) $ (20,309,567) $ (21,456,859) $ (22,069,771) $ (22,707,070) $ (24,464,102) $ (25,185,962) $ (25,936,226) $ (26,716,018) $ (27,526,503)
D - 21
Table 9
Proforma - PIF Fund - City of Fort Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Cash Funded Capital - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ 1,905,653 $ 1,962,823 $ 2,021,707 $ 2,082,359 $ 2,144,829 $ 2,209,174 $ 3,076,251 $ 3,168,539 $ 3,263,595 $ 3,361,503
$ 1,905,653 $ 1,962,823 $ 2,021,707 $ 2,082,359 $ 2,144,829 $ 2,209,174 $ 3,076,251 $ 3,168,539 $ 3,263,595 $ 3,361,503
- - - - - - - - - -
1,905,653 1,962,823 2,021,707 2,082,359 2,144,829 2,209,174 3,076,251 3,168,539 3,263,595 3,361,503
$ 1,905,653 $ 1,962,823 $ 2,021,707 $ 2,082,359 $ 2,144,829 $ 2,209,174 $ 3,076,251 $ 3,168,539 $ 3,263,595 $ 3,361,503
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
D - 22
Table 9
Proforma - PIF Fund - City of Fort Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Cash Funded Capital - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ 3,462,348 $ 2,539,580 $ 2,615,767 $ 2,694,240 $ 2,775,067 $ 2,858,319 $ 2,192,392 $ 2,258,164 $ 2,325,909 $ 2,395,686
$ 3,462,348 $ 2,539,580 $ 2,615,767 $ 2,694,240 $ 2,775,067 $ 2,858,319 $ 2,192,392 $ 2,258,164 $ 2,325,909 $ 2,395,686
- - - - - - - - - -
3,462,348 2,539,580 2,615,767 2,694,240 2,775,067 2,858,319 2,192,392 2,258,164 2,325,909 2,395,686
$ 3,462,348 $ 2,539,580 $ 2,615,767 $ 2,694,240 $ 2,775,067 $ 2,858,319 $ 2,192,392 $ 2,258,164 $ 2,325,909 $ 2,395,686
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
D - 23
Table 9
Proforma - PIF Fund - City of Fort Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Cash Funded Capital - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Status Quo Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 2,467,556 $ 2,468,966 $ 2,543,035 $ 2,619,326 $ 2,697,906 $ 2,778,843 $ 1,767,835 $ 1,820,870 $ 1,875,496 $ 1,931,761 $ 1,989,714
$ 2,467,556 $ 2,468,966 $ 2,543,035 $ 2,619,326 $ 2,697,906 $ 2,778,843 $ 1,767,835 $ 1,820,870 $ 1,875,496 $ 1,931,761 $ 1,989,714
- - - - - - - - - - -
2,467,556 2,468,966 2,543,035 2,619,326 2,697,906 2,778,843 1,767,835 1,820,870 1,875,496 1,931,761 1,989,714
$ 2,467,556 $ 2,468,966 $ 2,543,035 $ 2,619,326 $ 2,697,906 $ 2,778,843 $ 1,767,835 $ 1,820,870 $ 1,875,496 $ 1,931,761 $ 1,989,714
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
D - 24
Table 1
Proforma - East Larimer County Water District
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Line
No. Description FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
3 Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative) $ 343,540 $ 347,050 $ 350,568 $ 354,086 $ 357,598 $ 361,097 $ 364,863 $ 368,595 $ 372,287 $ 375,963
5 Chemicals 200,403 202,450 204,502 206,555 208,603 210,644 212,841 215,018 217,172 219,316
6 Energy 53,296 53,841 54,386 54,932 55,477 56,020 56,604 57,183 57,756 58,326
7 Administrative 73,782 74,536 75,291 76,047 76,801 77,552 78,361 79,163 79,956 80,745
8 Legal 11,330 11,446 11,562 11,678 11,794 11,909 12,033 12,156 12,278 12,399
9 All Other 189,112 191,044 192,980 194,917 196,851 198,776 200,850 202,904 204,936 206,960
10 Minor Capital 203,972 206,055 208,144 210,233 212,318 214,395 216,632 218,847 221,039 223,222
11 Additional O&M to the City - - - - - - - - - -
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo) - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service
13 Debt Service 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741 200,741
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment) 1,327,193 961,977 1,327,407 893,859 1,033,027 361,111 237,711 245,189 252,850 260,713
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins - - - - - - - - - -
17 Total Revenue Requirements $ 2,603,368 $ 2,249,139 $ 2,625,581 $ 2,203,048 $ 2,353,211 $ 1,692,246 $ 1,580,636 $ 1,599,797 $ 1,619,014 $ 1,638,386
18 Net Revenue / (Costs) (2,603,368) (2,249,139) (2,625,581) (2,203,048) (2,353,211) (1,692,246) (1,580,636) (1,599,797) (1,619,014) (1,638,386)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045) $ (82,455,894)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045) $38,286,665
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
D - 25
Table 1
Proforma - East Larimer County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966
$ 392,868 $ 411,131 $ 430,048 $ 449,633 $ 469,900 $ 546,642 $ 571,393 $ 596,984 $ 623,432 $ 650,752
229,178 239,832 250,867 262,292 274,114 318,881 333,319 348,248 363,676 379,614
60,949 63,782 66,717 69,755 72,899 84,805 88,645 92,615 96,718 100,956
84,376 88,298 92,361 96,567 100,920 117,402 122,717 128,214 133,894 139,761
12,957 13,559 14,183 14,829 15,497 18,028 18,844 19,688 20,561 21,462
216,266 226,319 236,733 247,514 258,670 300,915 314,540 328,628 343,187 358,226
233,259 244,103 255,334 266,963 278,996 324,560 339,255 354,450 370,153 386,374
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
200,741 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707 1,192,707
- - - - - - - - - -
269,816 - 289,698 299,979 310,486 321,218 332,533 344,086 355,875 367,899
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 1,700,410 $ 2,479,731 $ 2,828,648 $ 2,900,239 $ 2,974,189 $ 3,225,158 $ 3,313,955 $ 3,405,620 $ 3,500,203 $ 3,597,751
(1,700,410) (2,479,731) (2,828,648) (2,900,239) (2,974,189) (3,225,158) (2,321,989) (2,413,655) (2,508,237) (2,605,785)
D - 26
Table 1
Proforma - East Larimer County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966 $ 991,966
$ 678,961 $ 708,133 $ 788,447 $ 821,592 $ 855,755 $ 890,955 $ 931,062 $ 972,472 $ 1,079,867 $ 1,126,750 $ 1,175,085
396,069 413,086 459,937 479,272 499,201 519,735 543,131 567,287 629,936 657,285 685,481
105,333 109,858 122,318 127,460 132,760 138,221 144,443 150,867 167,528 174,802 182,300
145,820 152,085 169,334 176,452 183,790 191,350 199,963 208,857 231,922 241,991 252,372
22,392 23,354 26,003 27,096 28,223 29,384 30,706 32,072 35,614 37,160 38,754
373,754 389,813 434,024 452,270 471,076 490,453 512,531 535,326 594,445 620,253 646,861
403,122 420,443 468,128 487,807 508,091 528,991 552,804 577,390 641,154 668,990 697,689
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966 991,966
- - - - - - - - - - -
380,155 392,676 405,428 418,410 431,618 445,051 460,613 476,473 492,627 509,073 525,806
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 3,497,572 $ 3,601,414 $ 3,865,585 $ 3,982,324 $ 4,102,480 $ 4,226,105 $ 4,367,220 $ 4,512,709 $ 4,865,058 $ 5,028,270 $ 5,196,314
(2,505,606) (2,609,448) (2,873,620) (2,990,358) (3,110,514) (3,234,139) (3,375,254) (3,520,743) (3,873,092) (4,036,304) (4,204,348)
D - 27
Table 2
Proforma - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Line
No. Description FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
3 Total Revenues - - - - - - - - - -
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative) $ 681,526 $ 704,978 $ 727,779 $ 749,976 $ 771,609 $ 792,716 $ 813,974 $ 834,775 $ 855,145 $ 874,869
5 Chemicals 397,566 411,246 424,547 437,495 450,115 462,428 474,828 486,962 498,845 510,351
6 Energy 105,731 109,369 112,906 116,350 119,706 122,980 126,278 129,505 132,665 135,725
7 Administrative 146,371 151,407 156,304 161,072 165,718 170,251 174,816 179,284 183,659 187,895
8 Legal 22,477 23,250 24,002 24,734 25,448 26,144 26,845 27,531 28,203 28,853
9 All Other 375,166 388,076 400,628 412,846 424,755 436,374 448,076 459,527 470,740 481,598
10 Minor Capital 404,646 418,570 432,108 445,286 458,131 470,663 483,284 495,634 507,729 519,440
11 Additional O&M to the City - - - - - - - - - -
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo) - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service
13 Debt Service $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment) $ 2,632,930 $ 1,954,108 $ 2,755,700 $ 1,893,247 $ 2,229,019 $ 792,748 $ 530,312 $ 555,293 $ 580,797 $ 606,681
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins - - - - - - - - - -
17 Total Revenue Requirements $ 8,596,624 $ 7,991,217 $ 8,864,186 $ 8,071,219 $ 8,474,711 $ 7,104,516 $ 6,908,627 $ 6,998,723 $ 7,087,997 $ 7,175,625
18 Net Revenue / (Costs) $ (8,596,624) $ (7,991,217) $ (8,864,186) $ (8,071,219) $ (8,474,711) $ (7,104,516) $ (6,908,627) $ (6,998,723) $ (7,087,997) $ (7,175,625)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045) $ (247,534,940)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045) $125,598,878
Collaboration Scenario
RWCC
D - 28
Table 2
Proforma - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
Collaboration Scenario
RWCC
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868
$ 874,869 $ 909,635 $ 947,403 $ 986,552 $ 1,027,128 $ 1,069,183 $ 1,239,217 $ 1,290,910 $ 1,344,495 $ 1,400,038 $ 1,457,605
510,351 530,632 552,664 575,501 599,171 623,703 722,892 753,047 784,306 816,706 850,288
135,725 141,119 146,978 153,051 159,346 165,871 192,250 200,269 208,582 217,199 226,130
187,895 195,361 203,473 211,881 220,595 229,627 266,145 277,247 288,756 300,685 313,048
28,853 30,000 31,245 32,536 33,875 35,261 40,869 42,574 44,341 46,173 48,072
481,598 500,736 521,526 543,077 565,413 588,564 682,164 710,620 740,118 770,693 802,382
519,440 540,081 562,506 585,750 609,841 634,811 735,766 766,457 798,273 831,251 865,430
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 3,082,352 $ 3,082,352 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220 $ 5,368,220
747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 - -
$ 606,681 $ 624,724 $ - $ 664,582 $ 685,263 $ 706,461 $ 728,189 $ 751,271 $ 774,933 $ 799,187 $ 824,047
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 7,175,625 $ 7,302,500 $ 9,081,876 $ 9,869,010 $ 10,016,714 $ 10,169,562 $ 10,723,574 $ 10,908,476 $ 11,099,884 $ 10,550,153 $ 10,755,222
$ (7,175,625) $ (7,302,500) $ (9,081,876) $ (9,869,010) $ (10,016,714) $ (10,169,562) $ (10,723,574) $ (8,622,608) $ (8,814,016) $ (8,264,284) $ (8,469,353)
D - 29
Table 2
Proforma - Ft. Collins-Loveland Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenues
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
Collaboration Scenario
RWCC
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868
- - - - - - - - - - - -
2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868 2,285,868
$ 1,457,605 $ 1,517,262 $ 1,579,213 $ 1,755,198 $ 1,826,222 $ 1,899,796 $ 1,976,001 $ 2,035,318 $ 2,096,258 $ 2,296,364 $ 2,364,751 $ 2,434,977
850,288 885,089 921,227 1,023,887 1,065,319 1,108,238 1,152,692 1,187,294 1,222,843 1,339,574 1,379,467 1,420,434
226,130 235,385 244,996 272,298 283,316 294,730 306,552 315,755 325,209 356,253 366,862 377,757
313,048 325,861 339,166 376,962 392,216 408,017 424,384 437,123 450,211 493,188 507,875 522,958
48,072 50,039 52,082 57,886 60,229 62,655 65,168 67,124 69,134 75,734 77,989 80,305
802,382 835,222 869,325 966,201 1,005,299 1,045,799 1,087,749 1,120,402 1,153,948 1,264,102 1,301,748 1,340,406
865,430 900,851 937,633 1,042,121 1,084,291 1,127,974 1,173,220 1,208,438 1,244,621 1,363,430 1,404,034 1,445,730
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 5,368,220 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868 $ 2,285,868
- - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 824,047 $ 849,526 $ 875,711 $ 902,543 $ 930,035 $ 958,201 $ 987,053 $ 1,006,907 $ 1,027,084 $ 1,047,584 $ 1,068,409 $ 1,089,559
- - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 10,755,222 $ 7,885,103 $ 8,105,220 $ 8,682,964 $ 8,932,795 $ 9,191,279 $ 9,458,686 $ 9,664,230 $ 9,875,177 $ 10,522,097 $ 10,757,004 $ 10,997,993
$ (8,469,353) $ (5,599,235) $ (5,819,352) $ (6,397,095) $ (6,646,926) $ (6,905,411) $ (7,172,818) $ (7,378,362) $ (7,589,309) $ (8,236,228) $ (8,471,136) $ (8,712,125)
D - 30
Table 3
Proforma - North Weld County Water District
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Line
No. Description FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Revenue
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
3 Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative) 585,855 592,808 600,162 607,916 616,067 624,616 634,063 643,902 654,134 664,818
5 Chemicals 341,756 345,812 350,102 354,625 359,380 364,367 369,878 375,617 381,586 387,819
6 Energy 90,888 91,967 93,108 94,311 95,575 96,902 98,367 99,893 101,481 103,138
7 Administrative 125,823 127,317 128,896 130,561 132,312 134,148 136,177 138,290 140,488 142,782
8 Legal 19,321 19,551 19,793 20,049 20,318 20,600 20,911 21,236 21,573 21,926
9 All Other 322,501 326,329 330,377 334,645 339,133 343,839 349,039 354,455 360,088 365,969
10 Minor Capital 347,842 351,970 356,337 360,941 365,780 370,856 376,465 382,307 388,382 394,725
11 Additional O&M to the City - - - - - - - - - -
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo) - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service
13 Debt Service $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028 $ 1,357,028
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment) $ 2,263,324 $ 1,643,187 $ 2,272,485 $ 1,534,630 $ 1,779,692 $ 624,642 $ 413,098 $ 428,324 $ 444,275 $ 461,020
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins - - - - - - - - - -
17 Total Revenue Requirements $ 5,454,339 $ 4,855,969 $ 5,508,289 $ 4,794,706 $ 5,065,285 $ 3,936,998 $ 3,755,028 $ 3,801,052 $ 3,849,035 $ 3,899,226
18 Net Revenue / (Costs) $ (5,454,339) $ (4,855,969) $ (5,508,289) $ (4,794,706) $ (5,065,285) $ (3,936,998) $ (3,755,028) $ (3,801,052) $ (3,849,035) $ (3,899,226)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045) (180,150,386)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045) $83,878,979
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
D - 31
Table 3
Proforma - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenue
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627
699,551 737,586 777,769 820,222 865,077 1,016,159 1,073,082 1,133,256 1,196,865 1,264,105
408,080 430,268 453,708 478,473 504,639 592,772 625,978 661,080 698,186 737,411
108,527 114,427 120,661 127,248 134,206 157,645 166,476 175,811 185,679 196,111
150,242 158,411 167,041 176,158 185,792 218,239 230,465 243,388 257,049 271,491
23,071 24,325 25,651 27,051 28,530 33,513 35,390 37,375 39,472 41,690
385,089 406,026 428,146 451,516 476,207 559,375 590,710 623,835 658,850 695,865
415,348 437,930 461,788 486,994 513,626 603,328 637,126 672,853 710,620 750,543
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 1,357,028 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655 $ 3,136,655
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 480,442 $ - $ 523,937 $ 547,223 $ 571,599 $ 597,116 $ 624,502 $ 653,180 $ 683,209 $ 714,654
- - - - - - - - - -
$ 4,027,378 $ 5,445,628 $ 6,095,355 $ 6,251,541 $ 6,416,331 $ 6,914,801 $ 7,120,384 $ 7,337,432 $ 7,566,586 $ 7,808,524
$ (4,027,378) $ (5,445,628) $ (6,095,355) $ (6,251,541) $ (6,416,331) $ (6,914,801) $ (5,340,757) $ (5,557,805) $ (5,786,959) $ (6,028,897)
D - 32
Table 3
Proforma - North Weld County Water District
Line
No. Description
Revenue
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 Regionalization Asset Revenue
3 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
4 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
5 Chemicals
6 Energy
7 Administrative
8 Legal
9 All Other
10 Minor Capital
11 Additional O&M to the City
12 Greenfield Plant O&M (Status Quo)
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
14 City Capacity Purchase Debt Service
Capital Improvements
15 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
16 Additional Capacity from the City of Ft. Collins
17 Total Revenue Requirements
18 Net Revenue / (Costs)
19 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
20 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627
1,335,184 1,410,439 1,591,350 1,681,162 1,776,099 1,876,450 1,990,762 2,111,880 2,382,881 2,527,460 2,680,593
778,874 822,773 928,307 980,699 1,036,080 1,094,619 1,161,303 1,231,956 1,390,043 1,474,383 1,563,713
207,138 218,812 246,879 260,812 275,540 291,108 308,843 327,632 369,675 392,105 415,861
286,756 302,918 341,773 361,061 381,451 403,003 427,554 453,566 511,769 542,820 575,708
44,034 46,516 52,482 55,444 58,575 61,885 65,655 69,649 78,587 83,355 88,406
734,992 776,418 876,006 925,446 977,707 1,032,948 1,095,875 1,162,547 1,311,728 1,391,316 1,475,613
792,745 837,426 944,839 998,164 1,054,531 1,114,113 1,181,984 1,253,896 1,414,798 1,500,640 1,591,560
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627 $ 1,779,627
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 747,580 $ 782,122 $ 818,290 $ 856,161 $ 895,812 $ 937,326 $ 984,865 $ 1,034,738 $ 1,087,053 $ 1,141,922 $ 1,199,463
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 6,706,930 $ 6,977,051 $ 7,579,552 $ 7,898,576 $ 8,235,422 $ 8,591,080 $ 8,996,467 $ 9,425,492 $ 10,326,160 $ 10,833,626 $ 11,370,544
$ (4,927,303) $ (5,197,424) $ (5,799,925) $ (6,118,949) $ (6,455,796) $ (6,811,453) $ (7,216,840) $ (7,645,865) $ (8,546,533) $ (9,053,999) $ (9,590,917)
D - 33
Table 4
Proforma - City of Ft. Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 PIF Revenue - Capacity Sold to Members of Tri-Districts
3 O&M Revenue from Other Entities
4 Regionalization Asset Revenue
5 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
6 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
7 Chemicals
8 Energy
9 Administrative
10 Legal
11 All Other
12 Minor Capital
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
Capital Improvements
14 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
15 Total Revenue Requirements
16 Net Revenue / (Costs)
17 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
18 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861
- - - - - - - - - -
4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596
$ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457
$ 1,971,195 $ 1,968,803 $ 1,966,929 $ 1,965,541 $ 1,964,606 $ 1,964,099 $ 1,962,561 $ 1,961,415 $ 1,960,636 $ 1,960,363
1,149,888 1,148,493 1,147,400 1,146,590 1,146,045 1,145,749 1,144,852 1,144,183 1,143,729 1,143,570
305,807 305,436 305,145 304,930 304,785 304,706 304,468 304,290 304,169 304,126
423,351 422,838 422,435 422,137 421,937 421,827 421,497 421,251 421,084 421,025
65,010 64,931 64,869 64,823 64,792 64,776 64,725 64,687 64,661 64,652
1,085,103 1,083,786 1,082,755 1,081,990 1,081,476 1,081,197 1,080,350 1,079,719 1,079,291 1,079,140
1,170,366 1,168,946 1,167,834 1,167,009 1,166,454 1,166,153 1,165,240 1,164,559 1,164,097 1,163,935
- - - - - - - - - -
7,615,286 5,457,269 7,447,680 4,961,834 5,675,344 1,964,179 1,278,627 1,304,734 1,292,839 1,281,383
$ 13,786,005 $ 11,620,501 $ 13,605,047 $ 11,114,854 $ 11,825,439 $ 8,112,685 $ 7,422,320 $ 7,444,838 $ 7,430,507 $ 7,418,195
$ (8,437,548) $ (6,272,044) $ (8,256,590) $ (5,766,396) $ (6,476,982) $ (2,764,228) $ (2,073,863) $ (2,096,381) $ (2,082,049) $ (2,069,738)
(257,925,887)
$109,418,173
D - 34
Table 4
Proforma - City of Ft. Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 PIF Revenue - Capacity Sold to Members of Tri-Districts
3 O&M Revenue from Other Entities
4 Regionalization Asset Revenue
5 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
6 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
7 Chemicals
8 Energy
9 Administrative
10 Legal
11 All Other
12 Minor Capital
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
Capital Improvements
14 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
15 Total Revenue Requirements
16 Net Revenue / (Costs)
17 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
18 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596
747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 747,861 - -
- - - - - - - - - -
4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596 4,600,596
$ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 5,348,457 $ 10,406,053 $ 10,406,053 $ 9,658,192 $ 9,658,192
$ 2,029,000 $ 2,096,176 $ 2,165,620 $ 2,237,404 $ 2,311,603 $ 2,659,693 $ 2,744,795 $ 2,832,651 $ 2,923,347 $ 3,016,967
1,183,608 1,222,795 1,263,305 1,305,180 1,348,464 1,551,521 1,601,165 1,652,415 1,705,322 1,759,935
314,775 325,196 335,970 347,106 358,617 412,619 425,822 439,451 453,522 468,046
435,766 450,194 465,108 480,525 496,461 571,220 589,497 608,366 627,844 647,951
66,916 69,132 71,422 73,789 76,236 87,716 90,523 93,420 96,411 99,499
1,116,923 1,153,903 1,192,130 1,231,646 1,272,491 1,464,108 1,510,954 1,559,318 1,609,244 1,660,779
1,204,687 1,244,572 1,285,803 1,328,423 1,372,478 1,579,151 1,629,679 1,681,843 1,735,691 1,791,277
- 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596
1,275,238 - 1,258,417 1,250,125 1,241,907 1,233,760 1,224,266 1,214,858 1,205,534 1,196,289
$ 7,626,912 $ 11,619,563 $ 13,095,370 $ 13,311,794 $ 13,535,854 $ 14,617,384 $ 14,874,295 $ 15,139,918 $ 15,414,511 $ 15,698,339
$ (2,278,455) $ (6,271,106) $ (7,746,913) $ (7,963,337) $ (8,187,397) $ (9,268,926) $ (4,468,242) $ (4,733,865) $ (5,756,319) $ (6,040,147)
D - 35
Table 4
Proforma - City of Ft. Collins
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for Debt Service- Collaboration
2 PIF Revenue - Capacity Sold to Members of Tri-Districts
3 O&M Revenue from Other Entities
4 Regionalization Asset Revenue
5 Total Revenues
Revenue Requirements
6 Personnel (excludes Administrative)
7 Chemicals
8 Energy
9 Administrative
10 Legal
11 All Other
12 Minor Capital
Debt Service
13 Debt Service
Capital Improvements
14 Cash Funded CIP (Improvement Projects After PIF Rev Adjustment)
15 Total Revenue Requirements
16 Net Revenue / (Costs)
17 Total Costs (2015 - 2045)
18 Net Present Value (2015 - 2045)
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
$ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596 $ 5,057,596
$ 3,113,599 $ 3,213,023 $ 3,541,173 $ 3,654,238 $ 3,770,892 $ 3,891,238 $ 4,022,887 $ 4,158,621 $ 4,572,339 $ 4,725,747 $ 4,883,840
1,816,305 1,874,304 2,065,728 2,131,684 2,199,734 2,269,937 2,346,734 2,425,914 2,667,255 2,756,745 2,848,968
483,037 498,461 549,370 566,911 585,008 603,678 624,102 645,160 709,343 733,142 757,668
668,705 690,058 760,534 784,817 809,871 835,717 863,991 893,143 981,997 1,014,944 1,048,897
102,686 105,965 116,787 120,516 124,363 128,332 132,674 137,151 150,795 155,854 161,068
1,713,974 1,768,704 1,949,344 2,011,584 2,075,800 2,142,048 2,214,518 2,289,237 2,516,980 2,601,428 2,688,456
1,848,651 1,907,682 2,102,516 2,169,646 2,238,908 2,310,362 2,388,526 2,469,116 2,714,755 2,805,838 2,899,704
5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596 5,057,596
1,187,121 1,177,912 1,168,774 1,159,703 1,150,696 1,141,750 1,134,979 1,128,148 1,121,256 1,114,304 1,107,290
$ 15,991,673 $ 16,293,705 $ 17,311,822 $ 17,656,695 $ 18,012,867 $ 18,380,658 $ 18,786,008 $ 19,204,086 $ 20,492,315 $ 20,965,599 $ 21,453,488
$ (10,934,078) $ (11,236,109) $ (12,254,226) $ (12,599,099) $ (12,955,271) $ (13,323,062) $ (13,728,412) $ (14,146,490) $ (15,434,719) $ (15,908,003) $ (16,395,892)
D - 36
Table 5
Proforma - Collaboration Entity - PIF Fund
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
$ 6,471,394 $ 6,697,845 $ 6,933,057 $ 7,177,414 $ 7,431,315 $ 7,695,183 $ 11,629,486 $ 12,047,568 $ 12,482,406 $ 12,874,657
$ 6,471,394 $ 6,697,845 $ 6,933,057 $ 7,177,414 $ 7,431,315 $ 7,695,183 $ 11,629,486 $ 12,047,568 $ 12,482,406 $ 12,874,657
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 6,471,394 $ 6,697,845 $ 6,933,057 $ 7,177,414 $ 7,431,315 $ 7,695,183 $ 11,629,486 $ 12,047,568 $ 12,482,406 $ 12,874,657
$ - $ 6,471,394 $ 13,169,239 $ 20,102,296 $ 27,279,710 $ 34,711,025 $ 42,406,209 $ 54,035,695 $ 66,083,263 $ 78,565,669
$ 6,471,394 $ 13,169,239 $ 20,102,296 $ 27,279,710 $ 34,711,025 $ 42,406,209 $ 54,035,695 $ 66,083,263 $ 78,565,669 $ 91,440,327
D - 37
Table 5
Proforma - Collaboration Entity - PIF Fund
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034
$ 10,261,679 $ 9,630,548 $ 10,012,459 $ 10,411,492 $ 10,828,503 $ 11,264,399 $ 10,968,458 $ 11,422,489 $ 11,897,753 $ 12,395,349
$ 10,261,679 $ 9,630,548 $ 10,012,459 $ 10,411,492 $ 10,828,503 $ 11,264,399 $ 10,968,458 $ 11,422,489 $ 11,897,753 $ 12,395,349
- - - - 31,159,348 - - - - -
- - - - - - 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,159,348 $ - $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057
$ 10,261,679 $ 9,630,548 $ 10,012,459 $ 10,411,492 $ (20,330,845) $ 11,264,399 $ 853,401 $ 1,307,432 $ 1,782,696 $ 2,280,292
$ 91,440,327 $ 101,702,006 $ 111,332,554 $ 121,345,013 $ 131,756,505 $ 111,425,660 $ 122,690,059 $ 123,543,460 $ 124,850,892 $ 126,633,588
$ 101,702,006 $ 111,332,554 $ 121,345,013 $ 131,756,505 $ 111,425,660 $ 122,690,059 $ 123,543,460 $ 124,850,892 $ 126,633,588 $ 128,913,880
D - 38
Table 5
Proforma - Collaboration Entity - PIF Fund
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Plant Investment Fees
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
2 Cash Funded Capital
3 Debt Service - Transfer to Entity Operating Fund
4 Total Uses of Funds
5 Annual Surplus/(Deficiency)
6 Beginning Balance
7 Ending Balance
RWCC
Collaboration Scenario
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 FY2044 FY2045
$ 12,916,439 $ 13,389,634 $ 13,959,282 $ 14,556,249 $ 15,181,976 $ 15,837,988 $ 10,486,067 $ 11,026,373 $ 11,596,634 $ 12,198,587 $ 12,834,070
$ 12,916,439 $ 13,389,634 $ 13,959,282 $ 14,556,249 $ 15,181,976 $ 15,837,988 $ 10,486,067 $ 11,026,373 $ 11,596,634 $ 12,198,587 $ 12,834,070
- - 69,075,528 - - - - - 82,479,793 - -
10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057 10,115,057
$ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 79,190,585 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057 $ 92,594,850 $ 10,115,057 $ 10,115,057
$ 2,801,382 $ 3,274,577 $ (65,231,302) $ 4,441,192 $ 5,066,920 $ 5,722,931 $ 371,010 $ 911,316 $ (80,998,215) $ 2,083,530 $ 2,719,014
$ 128,913,880 $ 131,715,262 $ 134,989,839 $ 69,758,537 $ 74,199,729 $ 79,266,649 $ 84,989,580 $ 85,360,590 $ 86,271,906 $ 5,273,691 $ 7,357,221
$ 131,715,262 $ 134,989,839 $ 69,758,537 $ 74,199,729 $ 79,266,649 $ 84,989,580 $ 85,360,590 $ 86,271,906 $ 5,273,691 $ 7,357,221 $ 10,076,235
D - 39
Appendix E
Modified Collaboration
Model Costs and Net
Present Value
Annual costs and Net Present
Value for Each Entity Under
Modified Collaboration Scenarios
Plant Expansion Summary, Peak-
Day and Annual Demand,
General Assumptions
Entity: East Larimer County Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year 2015 NPV 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Peak Capacity (MGD) 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative) $343,000 $347,000 $351,000 $355,000 $359,000 $363,000 $367,000 $371,000 $375,000 $379,000
Chemicals $201,000 $203,000 $205,000 $207,000 $209,000 $211,000 $213,000 $215,000 $217,000 $219,000
Energy $54,000 $55,000 $56,000 $57,000 $58,000 $59,000 $60,000 $61,000 $62,000 $63,000
Administrative $74,000 $75,000 $76,000 $77,000 $78,000 $79,000 $80,000 $81,000 $82,000 $83,000
Legal $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000
All Other $189,000 $191,000 $193,000 $195,000 $197,000 $199,000 $201,000 $203,000 $205,000 $207,000
Minor Capital $204,000 $206,000 $208,000 $210,000 $212,000 $214,000 $216,000 $218,000 $220,000 $222,000
Total Annual O&M $1,077,000 $1,089,000 $1,101,000 $1,113,000 $1,125,000 $1,137,000 $1,149,000 $1,161,000 $1,173,000 $1,185,000
1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Annual Capital Improvements $1,400,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000 $900,000 $1,100,000 $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $300,000 $300,000
Amortized Buy-in Expense $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Capacity Expansion Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Budget $48,300,000 $2,677,000 $2,289,000 $2,701,000 $2,213,000 $2,425,000 $1,737,000 $1,549,000 $1,561,000 $1,673,000 $1,685,000
Model - ELCO
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 1 8/29/2014
Entity: East Larimer County Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Peak Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1
$396,000 $414,000 $433,000 $453,000 $473,000 $550,000 $575,000 $601,000 $628,000 $656,000
$229,000 $240,000 $251,000 $262,000 $274,000 $319,000 $333,000 $348,000 $363,000 $379,000
$66,000 $69,000 $72,000 $75,000 $78,000 $91,000 $95,000 $99,000 $103,000 $108,000
$87,000 $91,000 $95,000 $99,000 $103,000 $120,000 $125,000 $131,000 $137,000 $143,000
$13,000 $14,000 $15,000 $16,000 $17,000 $20,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $24,000
$216,000 $226,000 $236,000 $247,000 $258,000 $300,000 $314,000 $328,000 $343,000 $358,000
$232,000 $243,000 $254,000 $266,000 $278,000 $323,000 $338,000 $353,000 $369,000 $385,000
$1,239,000 $1,297,000 $1,356,000 $1,418,000 $1,481,000 $1,723,000 $1,801,000 $1,882,000 $1,966,000 $2,053,000
4.6% 4.7% 4.5% 4.6% 4.4% 16.3% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4%
$300,000 $11,000,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,739,000 $12,497,000 $1,856,000 $1,918,000 $4,881,000 $2,223,000 $2,301,000 $2,382,000 $2,466,000 $2,553,000
$1,067,595 $7,306,737 $1,033,490 $1,017,156 $2,465,237 $1,069,301 $1,054,115 $1,039,259 $1,024,674 $1,010,309
Model - ELCO
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 2 8/29/2014
Entity: East Larimer County Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Peak Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
14.1 14.1 14.1 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 16.4 16.4 16.4
$684,000 $713,000 $743,000 $827,000 $861,000 $896,000 $936,000 $978,000 $1,086,000 $1,133,000 $1,182,000
$395,000 $412,000 $430,000 $479,000 $499,000 $520,000 $543,000 $567,000 $630,000 $657,000 $685,000
$113,000 $118,000 $123,000 $137,000 $143,000 $149,000 $156,000 $163,000 $181,000 $189,000 $197,000
$149,000 $155,000 $162,000 $180,000 $187,000 $195,000 $204,000 $213,000 $237,000 $247,000 $258,000
$25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $38,000 $40,000 $42,000
$374,000 $390,000 $407,000 $453,000 $472,000 $491,000 $513,000 $536,000 $595,000 $621,000 $648,000
$402,000 $419,000 $437,000 $486,000 $506,000 $527,000 $551,000 $576,000 $640,000 $668,000 $697,000
$2,142,000 $2,233,000 $2,329,000 $2,592,000 $2,699,000 $2,810,000 $2,936,000 $3,067,000 $3,407,000 $3,555,000 $3,709,000
4.3% 4.2% 4.3% 11.3% 4.1% 4.1% 4.5% 4.5% 11.1% 4.3% 4.3%
$400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
$0 $0 $7,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,400,000 $0 $0 $0
$2,542,000 $2,633,000 $10,029,000 $2,992,000 $3,099,000 $3,210,000 $3,336,000 $12,867,000 $3,907,000 $4,055,000 $4,209,000
$958,053 $945,095 $3,428,412 $974,109 $960,900 $947,922 $938,219 $3,446,404 $996,651 $985,147 $973,868
Model - ELCO
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 3 8/29/2014
Entity: Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year 2015 NPV 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capacity (MGD) 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative) $682,000 $705,000 $728,000 $750,000 $772,000 $793,000 $814,000 $835,000 $855,000 $875,000
Chemicals $398,000 $412,000 $425,000 $438,000 $451,000 $463,000 $475,000 $487,000 $499,000 $511,000
Energy $106,000 $110,000 $114,000 $117,000 $120,000 $123,000 $126,000 $129,000 $132,000 $135,000
Administrative $147,000 $152,000 $157,000 $162,000 $167,000 $172,000 $177,000 $182,000 $186,000 $190,000
Legal $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000
All Other $375,000 $388,000 $401,000 $413,000 $425,000 $437,000 $449,000 $460,000 $471,000 $482,000
Minor Capital $404,000 $418,000 $432,000 $445,000 $458,000 $471,000 $484,000 $496,000 $508,000 $520,000
Total Annual O&M $2,135,000 $2,209,000 $2,282,000 $2,351,000 $2,420,000 $2,487,000 $2,554,000 $2,619,000 $2,682,000 $2,745,000
3.6% 3.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3%
Annual Capital Improvements $3,500,000 $2,600,000 $3,600,000 $2,500,000 $2,900,000 $1,000,000 $700,000 $700,000 $800,000 $800,000
Amortized Buy-in Expense $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000
Capacity Expansion Costs $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000
Total Annual Budget $153,700,000 $9,483,000 $8,657,000 $9,730,000 $8,699,000 $9,168,000 $7,335,000 $7,102,000 $7,167,000 $7,330,000 $7,393,000
Model - FCLWD
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 4 8/29/2014
Entity: Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
$910,000 $948,000 $987,000 $1,028,000 $1,070,000 $1,240,000 $1,292,000 $1,346,000 $1,402,000 $1,460,000
$531,000 $553,000 $576,000 $600,000 $625,000 $724,000 $754,000 $785,000 $817,000 $851,000
$140,000 $146,000 $152,000 $158,000 $164,000 $190,000 $198,000 $206,000 $215,000 $224,000
$198,000 $206,000 $215,000 $224,000 $233,000 $270,000 $281,000 $293,000 $305,000 $318,000
$33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $37,000 $43,000 $45,000 $47,000 $49,000 $51,000
$501,000 $522,000 $544,000 $566,000 $589,000 $683,000 $711,000 $741,000 $772,000 $804,000
$541,000 $563,000 $586,000 $610,000 $635,000 $736,000 $767,000 $799,000 $832,000 $866,000
$2,854,000 $2,972,000 $3,095,000 $3,222,000 $3,353,000 $3,886,000 $4,048,000 $4,217,000 $4,392,000 $4,574,000
4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 15.9% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1%
$800,000 $33,600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000
$3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000
$748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $10,848,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $748,000 $0
$7,502,000 $40,420,000 $7,843,000 $7,970,000 $18,201,000 $8,734,000 $8,896,000 $9,065,000 $9,240,000 $8,774,000
$4,605,577 $23,632,737 $4,367,276 $4,226,661 $9,192,742 $4,201,203 $4,075,360 $3,955,029 $3,839,411 $3,472,170
Model - FCLWD
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 5 8/29/2014
Entity: Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
44.0 44.0 44.0 45.9 45.9 45.9 45.9 45.9 45.9 45.9 45.9
$1,520,000 $1,582,000 $1,646,000 $1,829,000 $1,903,000 $1,979,000 $2,038,000 $2,099,000 $2,299,000 $2,367,000 $2,437,000
$886,000 $922,000 $959,000 $1,066,000 $1,109,000 $1,153,000 $1,188,000 $1,224,000 $1,341,000 $1,381,000 $1,422,000
$233,000 $243,000 $253,000 $281,000 $292,000 $304,000 $313,000 $322,000 $353,000 $364,000 $375,000
$331,000 $345,000 $359,000 $399,000 $415,000 $432,000 $445,000 $458,000 $502,000 $517,000 $532,000
$53,000 $55,000 $57,000 $63,000 $66,000 $69,000 $71,000 $73,000 $80,000 $82,000 $84,000
$837,000 $871,000 $906,000 $1,007,000 $1,048,000 $1,090,000 $1,123,000 $1,157,000 $1,267,000 $1,305,000 $1,344,000
$901,000 $938,000 $976,000 $1,085,000 $1,129,000 $1,174,000 $1,209,000 $1,245,000 $1,364,000 $1,405,000 $1,447,000
$4,761,000 $4,956,000 $5,156,000 $5,730,000 $5,962,000 $6,201,000 $6,387,000 $6,578,000 $7,206,000 $7,421,000 $7,641,000
4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 11.1% 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 9.5% 3.0% 3.0%
$1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
$0 $0 $12,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Model - FCLWD
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 6 8/29/2014
Entity: North Weld County Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year 2015 NPV 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capacity (MGD) 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative) $586,000 $593,000 $600,000 $608,000 $616,000 $625,000 $634,000 $644,000 $654,000 $665,000
Chemicals $342,000 $346,000 $350,000 $355,000 $360,000 $365,000 $371,000 $377,000 $383,000 $389,000
Energy $90,000 $91,000 $92,000 $93,000 $94,000 $95,000 $96,000 $97,000 $99,000 $101,000
Administrative $125,000 $126,000 $128,000 $130,000 $132,000 $134,000 $136,000 $138,000 $140,000 $142,000
Legal $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000
All Other $323,000 $327,000 $331,000 $335,000 $339,000 $344,000 $349,000 $354,000 $360,000 $366,000
Minor Capital $348,000 $352,000 $356,000 $361,000 $366,000 $371,000 $377,000 $383,000 $389,000 $395,000
Total Annual O&M $1,833,000 $1,854,000 $1,876,000 $1,901,000 $1,926,000 $1,953,000 $1,982,000 $2,012,000 $2,044,000 $2,077,000
1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6%
Annual Capital Improvements $2,100,000 $1,500,000 $2,100,000 $1,400,000 $1,700,000 $600,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
Amortized Buy-in Expense $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000
Capacity Expansion Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Budget $121,500,000 $5,250,000 $4,671,000 $5,293,000 $4,618,000 $4,943,000 $3,870,000 $3,699,000 $3,729,000 $3,761,000 $3,794,000
$5,250,000 $4,448,571 $4,800,907 $3,989,202 $4,066,618 $3,032,246 $2,760,251 $2,650,131 $2,545,593 $2,445,646
Model - NWCWD
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 7 8/29/2014
Entity: North Weld County Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6
$700,000 $738,000 $778,000 $820,000 $865,000 $1,016,000 $1,073,000 $1,133,000 $1,197,000 $1,264,000
$409,000 $431,000 $454,000 $479,000 $505,000 $593,000 $626,000 $661,000 $698,000 $737,000
$106,000 $112,000 $118,000 $124,000 $131,000 $154,000 $163,000 $172,000 $182,000 $192,000
$149,000 $157,000 $166,000 $175,000 $185,000 $217,000 $229,000 $242,000 $256,000 $270,000
$20,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $24,000 $28,000 $30,000 $32,000 $34,000 $36,000
$385,000 $406,000 $428,000 $451,000 $476,000 $559,000 $590,000 $623,000 $658,000 $695,000
$416,000 $439,000 $463,000 $488,000 $515,000 $605,000 $639,000 $675,000 $713,000 $753,000
$2,185,000 $2,304,000 $2,429,000 $2,560,000 $2,701,000 $3,172,000 $3,350,000 $3,538,000 $3,738,000 $3,947,000
5.2% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 17.4% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.6%
$500,000 $18,700,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $700,000
$1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000 $1,317,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $12,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4,002,000 $22,321,000 $4,246,000 $4,377,000 $16,618,000 $5,089,000 $5,267,000 $5,455,000 $5,655,000 $5,964,000
$2,456,881 $13,050,626 $2,364,332 $2,321,217 $8,393,219 $2,447,896 $2,412,873 $2,379,998 $2,349,769 $2,360,157
Model - NWCWD
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 8 8/29/2014
Entity: North Weld County Water District
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
28.6 28.6 28.6 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 41.6 41.6 41.6
$1,335,000 $1,410,000 $1,490,000 $1,681,000 $1,776,000 $1,876,000 $1,990,000 $2,111,000 $2,382,000 $2,527,000 $2,680,000
$778,000 $822,000 $868,000 $979,000 $1,034,000 $1,092,000 $1,159,000 $1,230,000 $1,388,000 $1,472,000 $1,561,000
$203,000 $214,000 $226,000 $255,000 $269,000 $284,000 $301,000 $319,000 $360,000 $382,000 $405,000
$285,000 $301,000 $318,000 $359,000 $379,000 $400,000 $424,000 $450,000 $508,000 $539,000 $572,000
$38,000 $40,000 $42,000 $47,000 $50,000 $53,000 $56,000 $59,000 $67,000 $71,000 $75,000
$734,000 $775,000 $819,000 $924,000 $976,000 $1,031,000 $1,094,000 $1,161,000 $1,310,000 $1,389,000 $1,473,000
$795,000 $840,000 $887,000 $1,001,000 $1,058,000 $1,118,000 $1,186,000 $1,258,000 $1,419,000 $1,505,000 $1,596,000
$4,168,000 $4,402,000 $4,650,000 $5,246,000 $5,542,000 $5,854,000 $6,210,000 $6,588,000 $7,434,000 $7,885,000 $8,362,000
5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 12.8% 5.6% 5.6% 6.1% 6.1% 12.8% 6.1% 6.0%
$700,000 $700,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $900,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000
$0 $0 $37,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,200,000 $0 $0 $0
$4,868,000 $5,102,000 $42,550,000 $6,046,000 $6,342,000 $6,754,000 $7,110,000 $68,788,000 $8,434,000 $8,985,000 $9,462,000
$1,834,698 $1,831,324 $14,545,712 $1,968,404 $1,966,451 $1,994,475 $1,999,622 $18,424,750 $2,151,460 $2,182,873 $2,189,293
Model - NWCWD
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 9 8/29/2014
Entity: City of Fort Collins
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year 2015 NPV 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capacity (MGD) 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative) $1,971,000 $1,969,000 $1,967,000 $1,966,000 $1,965,000 $1,964,000 $1,962,000 $1,961,000 $1,960,000 $1,960,000
Chemicals $1,149,000 $1,148,000 $1,147,000 $1,146,000 $1,145,000 $1,145,000 $1,144,000 $1,143,000 $1,143,000 $1,143,000
Energy $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000
Administrative $423,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000 $422,000
Legal $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000
All Other $1,085,000 $1,084,000 $1,083,000 $1,082,000 $1,081,000 $1,081,000 $1,080,000 $1,079,000 $1,079,000 $1,079,000
Minor Capital $1,170,000 $1,169,000 $1,168,000 $1,167,000 $1,166,000 $1,166,000 $1,165,000 $1,164,000 $1,164,000 $1,164,000
Total Annual O&M $6,170,000 $6,164,000 $6,159,000 $6,155,000 $6,151,000 $6,150,000 $6,145,000 $6,141,000 $6,140,000 $6,140,000
-0.2% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Annual Capital Improvements $6,800,000 $4,900,000 $6,600,000 $4,400,000 $5,000,000 $1,700,000 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Amortized Buy-in Expense ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000)
Capacity Expansion Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Budget $141,200,000 $8,370,000 $6,464,000 $8,159,000 $5,955,000 $6,551,000 $3,250,000 $2,645,000 $2,741,000 $2,740,000 $2,740,000
$8,370,000 $6,156,190 $7,400,454 $5,144,153 $5,389,524 $2,546,460 $1,973,740 $1,947,978 $1,854,540 $1,766,228
Model - City
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 10 8/29/2014
Entity: City of Fort Collins
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3
$2,029,000 $2,096,000 $2,165,000 $2,237,000 $2,311,000 $2,659,000 $2,744,000 $2,832,000 $2,923,000 $3,017,000
$1,183,000 $1,222,000 $1,262,000 $1,304,000 $1,347,000 $1,550,000 $1,600,000 $1,651,000 $1,704,000 $1,759,000
$318,000 $329,000 $340,000 $351,000 $363,000 $418,000 $431,000 $445,000 $459,000 $474,000
$437,000 $451,000 $466,000 $481,000 $497,000 $572,000 $590,000 $609,000 $628,000 $648,000
$67,000 $69,000 $71,000 $73,000 $75,000 $86,000 $89,000 $92,000 $95,000 $98,000
$1,117,000 $1,154,000 $1,192,000 $1,232,000 $1,273,000 $1,465,000 $1,512,000 $1,560,000 $1,610,000 $1,662,000
$1,205,000 $1,245,000 $1,286,000 $1,329,000 $1,373,000 $1,580,000 $1,631,000 $1,683,000 $1,737,000 $1,793,000
$6,356,000 $6,566,000 $6,782,000 $7,007,000 $7,239,000 $8,330,000 $8,597,000 $8,872,000 $9,156,000 $9,451,000
3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 15.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
$1,200,000 $50,400,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000) ($4,600,000)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,956,000 $52,366,000 $3,482,000 $3,707,000 $10,039,000 $5,130,000 $5,397,000 $5,672,000 $6,056,000 $6,351,000
$1,814,728 $30,617,316 $1,938,908 $1,965,901 $5,070,377 $2,467,618 $2,472,428 $2,474,675 $2,516,393 $2,513,306
Model - City
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 11 8/29/2014
Entity: City of Fort Collins
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Year
Capacity (MGD)
Annual O&M Budget
Personnel (excludes Administrative)
Chemicals
Energy
Administrative
Legal
All Other
Minor Capital
Total Annual O&M
Annual Capital Improvements
Amortized Buy-in Expense
Capacity Expansion Costs
Total Annual Budget
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
60.3 60.3 60.3 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 63.2 63.2 63.2
$3,114,000 $3,213,000 $3,316,000 $3,655,000 $3,772,000 $3,892,000 $4,024,000 $4,160,000 $4,574,000 $4,727,000 $4,885,000
$1,815,000 $1,873,000 $1,933,000 $2,130,000 $2,198,000 $2,268,000 $2,345,000 $2,424,000 $2,665,000 $2,754,000 $2,846,000
$489,000 $505,000 $521,000 $574,000 $592,000 $611,000 $632,000 $653,000 $718,000 $742,000 $767,000
$669,000 $690,000 $712,000 $785,000 $810,000 $836,000 $864,000 $893,000 $982,000 $1,015,000 $1,049,000
$101,000 $104,000 $107,000 $118,000 $122,000 $126,000 $130,000 $134,000 $147,000 $152,000 $157,000
$1,715,000 $1,770,000 $1,827,000 $2,014,000 $2,078,000 $2,144,000 $2,217,000 $2,292,000 $2,520,000 $2,605,000 $2,692,000
$1,850,000 $1,909,000 $1,970,000 $2,171,000 $2,240,000 $2,311,000 $2,389,000 $2,470,000 $2,716,000 $2,807,000 $2,901,000
$9,753,000 $10,064,000 $10,386,000 $11,447,000 $11,812,000 $12,188,000 $12,601,000 $13,026,000 $14,322,000 $14,802,000 $15,297,000
3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 10.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 9.9% 3.4% 3.3%
$1,500,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000
$0 $0 $11,900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,400,000 $0 $0 $0
$11,253,000 $11,664,000 $23,886,000 $13,147,000 $13,512,000 $13,888,000 $14,401,000 $24,226,000 $16,222,000 $16,702,000 $17,197,000
$4,241,137 $4,186,704 $8,165,426 $4,280,286 $4,189,638 $4,101,165 $4,050,148 $6,488,893 $4,138,129 $4,057,689 $3,978,998
Model - City
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 12 8/29/2014
Capacity Tables
Modified Collaboration Scenario 2
Capacity - MG
FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City Total O&M Factor
2013 17.7 11.7 15.7 87.0 132.0 1.00
2014 22.7 11.7 15.7 82.0 132.0 1.00
2015 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2016 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2017 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2018 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2019 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2020 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2021 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2022 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2023 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2024 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2025 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2026 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2027 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2028 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2029 39.2 12.7 22.7 57.4 132.0 1.00
2030 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2031 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2032 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2033 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2034 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2035 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2036 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2037 44.0 14.1 28.6 60.3 147.0 1.11
2038 45.9 15.2 33.9 62.0 157.0 1.07
2039 45.9 15.2 33.9 62.0 157.0 1.07
2040 45.9 15.2 33.9 62.0 157.0 1.07
2041 45.9 15.2 33.9 62.0 157.0 1.07
2042 45.9 15.2 33.9 62.0 157.0 1.07
2043 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2044 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2045 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2046 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2047 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2048 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2049 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2050 45.9 16.4 41.6 63.2 167.0 1.06
2051 45.9 17.3 49.1 63.7 176.0 1.05
2052 45.9 17.3 49.1 63.7 176.0 1.05
2053 45.9 17.3 49.1 63.7 176.0 1.05
2054 45.9 17.3 49.1 63.7 176.0 1.05
2055 45.9 17.3 49.1 63.7 176.0 1.05
Capacity changes are highlighted in blue.
Capacity
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final 8/29/2014
E - 13
Capacity Expansion Tables
Modified Collaboration Scenario 3
Capacity Expansion - MGD
FCLWD ELCO NWCWD City Total
2013 0.0
2014 C 5.0 (5.0) 0.0
2015 C 16.5 1.1 7.0 (24.6) (0.0)
2016 0.0
2017 0.0
2018 0.0
2019 0.0
2020 0.0
2021 0.0
2022 0.0
2023 0.0
2024 0.0
2025 0.0
2026 0.0
2027 0.0
2028 0.0
2029 SC 4.9 1.4 5.9 2.9 15.0
2030 0.0
2031 0.0
2032 0.0
2033 0.0
2034 0.0
2035 0.0
2036 0.0
2037 G 1.8 1.1 5.4 1.7 10.0
2038 0.0
2039 0.0
2040 0.0
2041 0.0
2042 G 0.0 1.2 7.6 1.2 10.0
2043 0.0
2044 0.0
2045 0.0
2046 0.0
2047 0.0
2048 0.0
2049 0.0
2050 G 0.0 1.0 7.5 0.5 9.0
2051 0.0
2052 0.0
2053 0.0
2054 0.0
2055 0.0
28.20 4.70 25.92 (23.82) 34.99
C - City of Fort Collins Excess Capacity Purchase
SC - SCFP Expansion
G - Green Field Plant Capacity
Expansion Tables
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 14 8/29/2014
Demand Assumptions
Input Cells are highlighted in yellow.
Organization
Approximate
Peak Demands in
Last 5 Years
(MGD)
Projected Peak
Day Demand in
30 Years (MGD)
FCLWD 21.7 46.0
ELCO 9.8 15.6
NWCWD 14.1 36.3
City 46.8 62.6
Total 92.4 160.5
City of Fort Collins Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max
Max Daily Demand 37.10 40.77 39.75 46.77 42.95 46.77
Annual Demand 7,391 7,830 7,621 8,757 7,560 8,757
Avg Daily Demand 20.25 21.45 20.88 23.93 20.71 23.93
FCLWD Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max
Max Daily Demand 17.30 18.80 19.80 20.20 21.70 21.70
Annual Demand 2437 2877 2946 3411 2755 2755
Avg Daily Demand 6.68 7.88 8.07 9.32 7.55 7.55
ELCO Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max
Max Daily Demand 6.96 8.73 9.78 8.13 8.58 9.78
Annual Demand 1119 1225 1121 1408 1328 1121
Avg Daily Demand 3.06 3.36 3.07 3.85 3.64 3.07
NWCWD Annual Demands 2009-13
Daily Deliveries (MG) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 yr Max
Max Daily Demand 10.01 12.00 13.20 13.10 14.10 14.10
Annual Demand 2097 2309 2567 2760 2497 2497
Avg Daily Demand 5.75 6.33 7.03 7.54 6.84 6.84
Demand Assumptions
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final 8/29/2014
E - 15
Peak Demand - MGD
FCLWD (1) ELCO (2) NWCWD (3) City (4) Total Demand
Demand
Increase
(Annual)
2013 21.7 9.8 14.1 46.8 92.4
2014 23.0 10.0 14.5 46.8 94.3 2.1%
2015 24.3 10.1 15.0 47.6 97.0 2.9%
2016 25.6 10.3 15.4 48.4 99.7 2.8%
2017 26.8 10.5 15.9 49.2 102.4 2.7%
2018 28.1 10.7 16.3 50.0 105.1 2.7%
2019 29.4 10.9 16.8 50.8 107.9 2.6%
2020 30.7 11.1 17.3 51.6 110.7 2.6%
2021 32.0 11.2 17.9 52.3 113.4 2.4%
2022 33.3 11.4 18.4 53.0 116.1 2.4%
2023 34.6 11.6 18.9 53.7 118.8 2.4%
2024 35.8 11.8 19.5 54.4 121.5 2.3%
2025 36.5 12.0 20.1 55.1 123.7 1.7%
2026 37.1 12.1 20.7 55.6 125.6 1.6%
2027 37.7 12.3 21.3 56.2 127.5 1.6%
2028 38.4 12.5 22.0 56.7 129.5 1.5%
2029 39.0 12.7 22.6 57.2 131.5 1.5%
2030 39.6 12.9 23.3 57.7 133.5 1.5%
2031 40.3 13.1 24.0 58.1 135.4 1.4%
2032 40.9 13.2 24.7 58.4 137.3 1.4%
2033 41.5 13.4 25.5 58.8 139.3 1.4%
2034 42.2 13.6 26.2 59.2 141.2 1.4%
2035 42.8 13.8 27.0 59.6 143.2 1.4%
2036 43.5 14.0 27.8 59.9 145.2 1.4%
2037 44.1 14.1 28.7 60.3 147.2 1.4%
2038 44.7 14.3 29.5 60.7 149.3 1.4%
2039 45.4 14.5 30.4 61.0 151.3 1.4%
2040 46.0 14.7 31.3 61.4 153.4 1.4%
2041 46.0 14.9 32.3 61.6 154.8 0.9%
2042 46.0 15.1 33.2 61.9 156.2 0.9%
2043 46.0 15.2 34.2 62.1 157.6 0.9%
2044 46.0 15.4 35.3 62.3 159.0 0.9%
2045 46.0 15.6 36.3 62.6 160.5 0.9%
2046 46.0 15.8 37.4 62.7 161.9 0.9%
2047 46.0 15.9 38.5 62.9 163.3 0.9%
2048 46.0 16.1 39.7 63.0 164.8 0.9%
2049 46.0 16.3 40.9 63.2 166.3 0.9%
2050 46.0 16.5 42.1 63.3 167.9 0.9%
2051 46.0 16.6 43.4 63.4 169.4 0.9%
2052 46.0 16.8 44.7 63.5 171.0 0.9%
2053 46.0 17.0 46.0 63.6 172.6 0.9%
2054 46.0 17.1 47.4 63.7 174.2 1.0%
2055 46.0 17.3 48.8 63.8 175.9 1.0%
(2) Peak-day demand of 15.60 in 2045 provided by ELCO staff per April 28, 2014 email to RWCC members.
(3) Peak-day demand of 36.30 in 2045 and 48.80 in 2055 provided by NWCWD per April 30, 2014 email to RWCC members.
(4) Annual peak-day demand projections provided by the City per April 29, 2014 email to RWCC members.
Cells in blue are hard coded. All other cells are interpolated from the blue cells.
(1) Peak-day demand of 46.0 MGD projected to occur in 2040 per January 14, 2014 memo
Demand Assumptions
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 16 8/29/2014
Annual Demand - MG
FCLWD (1) ELCO (2) NWCWD (1) City (2)
SCFP Total
Annual
Demand (MG)
2013 2,755 1,466 2,497 8,757 6,718
2014 2,918 1,509 2,571 8,763 6,999
2015 3,081 1,553 2,649 8,912 7,283
2016 3,244 1,597 2,728 9,060 7,570
2017 3,407 1,641 2,810 9,209 7,859
2018 3,571 1,686 2,894 9,358 8,151
2019 3,734 1,730 2,981 9,506 8,445
2020 3,897 1,775 3,071 9,655 8,742
2021 4,060 1,820 3,163 9,789 9,042
2022 4,223 1,865 3,257 9,923 9,345
2023 4,386 1,910 3,355 10,057 9,651
2024 4,548 1,954 3,456 10,190 9,958
2025 4,629 1,999 3,560 10,324 10,187
2026 4,709 2,044 3,666 10,420 10,419
2027 4,790 2,088 3,776 10,515 10,654
2028 4,871 2,132 3,890 10,610 10,893
2029 4,952 2,176 4,006 10,705 11,134
2030 5,032 2,220 4,126 10,801 11,379
2031 5,113 2,263 4,250 10,872 11,627
2032 5,194 2,306 4,378 10,943 11,878
2033 5,275 2,349 4,509 11,014 12,132
2034 5,355 2,391 4,644 11,085 12,391
2035 5,436 2,433 4,784 11,156 12,652
2036 5,517 2,474 4,927 11,224 12,918
2037 5,598 2,514 5,075 11,293 13,187
2038 5,678 2,555 5,227 11,362 13,460
2039 5,759 2,594 5,384 11,431 13,737
2040 5,840 2,633 5,546 11,500 14,019
2041 5,840 2,671 5,712 11,543 14,223
2042 5,840 2,709 5,883 11,585 14,432
2043 5,840 2,746 6,060 11,628 14,646
2044 5,840 2,783 6,242 11,670 14,864
2045 5,840 2,818 6,429 11,713 15,087
2046 5,840 2,853 6,622 11,741 15,315
2047 5,840 2,887 6,820 11,770 15,548
2048 5,840 2,921 7,025 11,798 15,786
2049 5,840 2,954 7,236 11,827 16,030
2050 5,840 2,986 7,453 11,855 16,279
2051 5,840 3,017 7,677 11,873 16,534
2052 5,840 3,048 7,907 11,891 16,794
2053 5,840 3,078 8,144 11,910 17,061
2054 5,840 3,107 8,388 11,928 17,335
2055 5,840 3,135 8,640 11,946 17,615
(2) Annual demands provided by the ELCO and City.
Cells in blue are hard coded. All other cells are interpolated from the blue cells.
(1) Annual demands projected based on Max Daily Demand multiplied by
Demand Assumptions
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 17 8/29/2014
Annual Demand - % Total
FCLWD (1) ELCO (2) NWCWD (1) City (2)
2013 17.8% 9.5% 16.1% 56.6%
2014 18.5% 9.6% 16.3% 55.6%
2015 19.0% 9.6% 16.4% 55.0%
2016 19.5% 9.6% 16.4% 54.5%
2017 20.0% 9.6% 16.5% 54.0%
2018 20.4% 9.6% 16.5% 53.4%
2019 20.8% 9.6% 16.6% 53.0%
2020 21.2% 9.6% 16.7% 52.5%
2021 21.6% 9.7% 16.8% 52.0%
2022 21.9% 9.7% 16.9% 51.5%
2023 22.3% 9.7% 17.0% 51.0%
2024 22.6% 9.7% 17.2% 50.6%
2025 22.6% 9.7% 17.4% 50.3%
2026 22.6% 9.8% 17.6% 50.0%
2027 22.6% 9.9% 17.8% 49.7%
2028 22.7% 9.9% 18.1% 49.3%
2029 22.7% 10.0% 18.3% 49.0%
2030 22.7% 10.0% 18.6% 48.7%
2031 22.7% 10.1% 18.9% 48.3%
2032 22.8% 10.1% 19.2% 48.0%
2033 22.8% 10.1% 19.5% 47.6%
2034 22.8% 10.2% 19.8% 47.2%
2035 22.8% 10.2% 20.1% 46.9%
2036 22.9% 10.2% 20.4% 46.5%
2037 22.9% 10.3% 20.7% 46.1%
2038 22.9% 10.3% 21.1% 45.8%
2039 22.9% 10.3% 21.4% 45.4%
2040 22.9% 10.3% 21.7% 45.1%
2041 22.7% 10.4% 22.2% 44.8%
2042 22.4% 10.4% 22.6% 44.5%
2043 22.2% 10.5% 23.1% 44.3%
2044 22.0% 10.5% 23.5% 44.0%
2045 21.8% 10.5% 24.0% 43.7%
2046 21.6% 10.5% 24.5% 43.4%
2047 21.4% 10.6% 25.0% 43.1%
2048 21.2% 10.6% 25.5% 42.8%
2049 21.0% 10.6% 26.0% 42.5%
2050 20.8% 10.6% 26.5% 42.1%
2051 20.6% 10.6% 27.0% 41.8%
2052 20.4% 10.6% 27.6% 41.5%
2053 20.2% 10.6% 28.1% 41.1%
2054 20.0% 10.6% 28.7% 40.8%
2055 19.8% 10.6% 29.2% 40.4%
Demand Assumptions
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final E - 18 8/29/2014
General Assumptions
Cells in yellow are input cells where assumptions may be changed.
Inflation
Capital 3.0%
O&M 4.0%
Discount Rate (Cost of Capital) 5.0%
Financing of Buy-in Capacity for Collaboration
APR 5.0%
Term 20 yrs
P&I for 1 MG $186,965.23
SOLDIER CANYON FILTER PLANT BUDGET 2014
O&M
ELCO 18.22%
FCLWD 44.80%
NWCWD 36.98%
WTF SCFP
Total 2013 Production MG 7,811 3,000
O&M Efficiency 30%
Year Efficiency
2014 0%
2015 3%
2016 3%
2017 3%
2018 3%
2019 3%
2020 3%
2021 3%
2022 3%
2023 3%
2024 3%
2025 0%
Discount Factors Capital O&M NPV
2015 100% 100% 100%
2016 97% 96% 95%
2017 94% 92% 91%
2018 92% 89% 86%
2019 89% 85% 82%
2020 86% 82% 78%
2021 84% 79% 75%
2022 81% 76% 71%
2023 79% 73% 68%
2024 77% 70% 64%
2025 74% 68% 61%
2026 72% 65% 58%
2027 70% 62% 56%
2028 68% 60% 53%
2029 66% 58% 51%
2030 64% 56% 48%
2031 62% 53% 46%
2032 61% 51% 44%
2033 59% 49% 42%
2034 57% 47% 40%
2035 55% 46% 38%
2036 54% 44% 36%
2037 52% 42% 34%
2038 51% 41% 33%
2039 49% 39% 31%
2040 48% 38% 30%
2041 46% 36% 28%
2042 45% 35% 27%
Appendix F
Case Studies and
Governance Model
Information
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
Case Studies Selected:
1. Platte River Power Authority (Title 29)
2. South Metro Water Supply Authority (Title 29)
3. Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District (Title 32)
Other Entities Considered:
1. Water Conservation District
2. Title 29 Intergovernmental Agreement
Table 1, included at the end of this document shows a side by side comparison of the three case studies.
Case Study #1 - Platte River Power Authority (www.prpa.org)
A. Background / Purpose5
Platte River Power Authority evolved from the Platte River Municipal Power Association (PRMPA). The
PRMPA was a consortium of 31 municipalities created on December 28, 1965, under the leadership of
Stan Case, then director of Fort Collins City Utilities. Each PRMPA municipality had a contract with the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which provided hydroelectric power from the Colorado River and Missouri
Basin and each member municipality wanted to protect its interest in the energy the Bureau promised to
deliver. Case helped PRMPA members understand the ramifications of the Bureau’s 1960s
announcement that there would be no new long-term energy power projects and the Bureau would not be
able to fully supply Colorado’s energy needs beyond the mid-1970s. The towns and cities would have to
find new energy resources.
In 1973, four of the original thirty-one municipalities banded together to create a jointly-owned,
economically self-sustaining, not-for-profit electric utility. This action took the help of the Colorado
legislature and the voters in the state. Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland looked to the
Platte River Power Authority to provide supplemental power beyond their federal hydropower interests.
After a period of time, the four owner municipalities came to depend on the Platte River Power Authority
to provide the affordable, reliable electricity their citizens had come to rely upon.
B. Parties
1. Town of Estes Park
2. City of Longmont
3. City of Fort Collins
4. City of Loveland
C. Organizational Documents (attached)
• "Amended and Restated Organic Contract Establishing Platte River Power Authority as a
Separate Governmental Entity" dated September 1, 2010
• 1998 amendment that declared Platte River Power an "enterprise" for purposes of Section 20,
Article X of the Colorado Constitution (TABOR)
5 Information based upon the Platte River Power Authority website: http://www.prpa.org/about-us/company-history.
F - 1
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
• Separate Contracts of the Supply of Electric Power and Energy with each of the participating
entities
D. Statutory Authority
• 29-1-204, C.R.S. – Authority of municipalities to establish a separate governmental entity,
specifically a power authority
E. Management Provisions
• The governing body is an eight (8) member Board of Directors.
• Two (2) members are selected by each participating municipality:
o The Mayor (or the mayor's designee)
o Governing body of each Municipality appoints the other (expert)
• Terms of Office:
o Mayor (or appointee) so long as that person is the Mayor
o The legislatively appointed directors – rotating 4 year terms
• Removal and Vacancies - up to the appointing entity
• Quorum = simple majority
F. Withdrawal/Termination Provisions
• Term of the Contract: 12/31/2050
• No termination prior to 2050
o 12 month notice to terminate thereafter
o No limit on amendments approved by all Municipalities
• No termination if bonds are outstanding
• Distribution of Assets upon Termination:
o To all municipalities pro-rata using the following formula:
Total dollar amount of electric power/energy purchased/paid for by the
Municipality from the Authority during its corporate existence
/
Total dollar amount of all electric power/energy purchased/paid for by the
Municipalities from the Authority during its corporate existence
G. Other Unique Provisions
• Article 2.1(iii), broad authority, upon receipt of approval of each Municipality, to "provide
additional designated function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to any combination of two or
more of the Municipalities, provided that these constitute an 'enterprise'" under TABOR. This
additional flexibility allows the Authority to adapt without fully amending the Organic Contract.
• Deadlock – because there is an even number of directors, a deadlock is a possibility. Weighted
Voting is based on the following formula:
$ Amount of electric power/energy purchased by the Municipality in last 12 mo.
/
Total $ amount of all electric power/energy purchase from the Authority in last 12 months
Each Director gets one-half of the weighted votes for the Director's Municipality from the formula
set forth above.
F - 2
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
• Western Area Power Administration General Power Contract Provisions – all members of the
Authority are bound by this Contract
Case Study #2 - South Metro Water Supply Authority (www.southmetrowater.org)
A. Background / Purpose
The South Metro Denver water providers, located in Douglas and Arapahoe Counties, have recognized
the need to move away from reliance upon non-renewable ground water to the development and reliance
upon renewable sources. These efforts have been ongoing for several decades.
Following the failure to obtain approval for the Two Forks Reservoir project (in western Douglas County),
the Douglas County Water Resource Authority ("DCWRA") was formed. Its purposes were multi-fold and
included outreach, communications, and the search for renewable water. Around 2000, the DCWRA
formed the South Metro Water Supply Study Board ("Study Board"). In a joint effort with the Colorado
River Water Conservation District and the Denver Water Board, the Study Board explored conjunctive use
and other opportunities to bring renewable water into Douglas County. In 2004, the South Metro Water
Supply Authority ("SMWSA") was formed and became the successor to the Study Board.
Due to challenges related to the management of the SMWSA, the formation intergovernmental
agreement was amended and restated in 2006. The primary purpose of the amendment and restatement
was to change the make-up of the governing board. The SMWSA has become an important and
influential voice for water providers in Douglas and Arapahoe Counties. Most recently, the SMWSA has
helped form the South Metro WISE Authority to implement the Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency
(WISE) Partnership with the Denver Water Board and the City of Aurora. The SMWSA is also involved in
the acquisition of pipeline capacity for its members, the Chatfield Reallocation project, and the Colorado /
Wyoming Coalition investigating using the Flaming Gorge as a renewable water resource.
B. Parties
1. Town of Castle Rock 8. Centennial Water & Sanitation District
2. Parker Water & Sanitation District 9. Cottonwood Water & Sanitation District
3. Stonegate Village Metropolitan District 10. Meridian Metropolitan District
4. Dominion Water & Sanitation District 11. Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
5. Castle Pines Metropolitan District 12. Pinery Water & Wastewater District
6. Rangeview Metropolitan District 13. Inverness Water & Sanitation District
7. East Cherry Creek Valley Water 14. Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater
& Sanitation District Authority
Note: members include Dominion Water & Sanitation District which has no customers at this time and
the East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District which serves in excess of 100,000
individuals.
C. Organizational Documents (attached)
• "First Amended and Restated South Metro Water Supply Authority Intergovernmental Agreement"
dated January 1, 2006
F - 3
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
D. Statutory Authority
• 29-1-204.2, C.R.S. – Authority of municipalities, special districts, or other political subdivisions to
establish a separate governmental entity, specifically a water authority
E. Management Provisions
• The governing body is a five (5) member Board of Directors.
o Four (4) from the largest water providers (measured in SFEs served) appointed by the
governing body of the water provider.
o One (1) from the remaining water providers
• Each "other provider" appoints a representative.
• Annually, the representatives of the other providers meet to elect the other
provider Board Member and an alternate.
• Terms of Office
o Four large participants – the pleasure of their appointing Board
o Other participant/alternate – 1 year with no term limits
• Removal and Vacancies . . . up to the appointing entity or other participants
• Quorum = simple majority
F. Withdrawal/Termination Provisions
• Term of the Contract: Perpetual (unique to water supply contracts) though members can withdraw
at any time.
• Termination requires unanimous consent of all Participants.
• Distribution of Assets upon Termination:
o To all Participants pro-rata using the following formula:
2/3 equally to the four largest Participants
1/3 equally to the Other Participants
G. Other Unique Provisions
• The board must unanimously approve the expenditure of more than $20,000 for the investigation
of any project (renewable water, pipeline, supply, etc.). If unanimous approval cannot be reached,
investigation can proceed under a participation agreement where only the interested members
(that is, the participants) fund the investigation and project. No member can be required to
participate in any particular project.
Case Study #3 - Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District
A. Background / Purpose
In the early 1980s, the special districts located in the vicinity of I-25 from I-225 south to the Rampart
Range recognized the need for public improvements in the area. On a macro level, these projects would
benefit the entire area. On a micro level, few if any of the districts could afford to fund the improvements
by themselves. The districts formed the Joint Southeast Public Improvement Authority (as Title 29
authority) to jointly fund the improvements and to work cooperatively. JSPIA was instrumental in
improving the I-25 interchanges in the area.
In the early 2000s, the members of JSPIA desired to leverage the cooperation among the JSPA members
and allow a mill levy to be used to fund future improvements. Together, they formed the Southeast Public
Improvements Metropolitan District (SPIMD). SPIMD has partnered with the Denver South Economic
F - 4
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
Development Partnership (a traditional economic development entity) and the Transportation
Management Association (TMA) to create a "three-legged stool" to support the economic and public
improvement health of the Tech Center. Of particular note, SPIMD was instrumental in the extending light
rail into the Tech Center, funding the construction of the pedestrian bridges across I-25 to allow
connections from the light rail parking to the trains, and creating, planning, and funding circulator buses
throughout the Tech Center.
B. Parties
• Commercial property owners within the SPIMD boundaries and approved by all "governing entities"
within the District Boundaries. The governing entities include:
1. Denver
2. Arapahoe County
3. Douglas County
4. Greenwood Village
5. City of Centennial
6. Lone Tree
C. Organizational Documents (attached)
• Traditional Metropolitan District Service Plan
• Intergovernmental Agreement with all of the counties and municipalities
D. Statutory Authority
• 32-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. – Special District Act
E. Management Provisions
• The governing body is a five (5) member Board of Directors elected at-large.
• Terms of Office – four (4) years as set by statute
• Removal and Vacancies – by statute
• Quorum = simple majority
F. Withdrawal/Termination Provisions
• Exclusion from the District is governed by statute.
• Dissolution of the District is governed by statute and requires approval of eligible electors.
G. Other Unique Provisions
• Residential property is excluded before there are any sales to general homeowners.
• SPIMD is permitted to spend tax money on economic development.
Other Entities Considered #1 - Water Conservation District
This entity is potentially the most powerful and uniquely tailored entity. It is created through the normal
legislative process. The legislative process gives this entity its flexibility but also makes it one of the most
difficult entities to form.
F - 5
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
The Legislative process includes the following:
• Caucus with interested parties
o Local legislative delegation;
o Local counties, municipalities, and special districts;
o Local and statewide special interests (Trout Unlimited, conservation groups, etc.)
o West Slope interests and legislators
o Southern Colorado interests and legislators
• A Bill is drafted and introduced in the House
• Negotiated through House committees
• Passed by the House
• Introduced in the Senate
• Negotiated through Senate Committees
• Passed by the Senate
• Reconcile differences between House bill and Senate Bill (if any)
• Signed by the Governor
As is often the cases with the legislative process, there are many opportunities for mischief, legislative
changes, and need for compromise. In some cases, the legislative changes and compromises effectively
eviscerated the bill so that it no longer met the needs for which it was promoted.
A copy of the last Water Conservation District bill that was drafted by Spencer Fane Grimshaw is
attached. It failed in committee.
Other Entities Considered #2 - Title 29 Intergovernmental Agreement
This is a relatively simple process to review. A Title 29 Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") is nearly
identical to a Title 29 Authority (see the discussion regarding the Platte River Power Authority and the
South Metro Water Supply Authority, above) except that it is not a standalone governmental entity.
• As the result of not being a standalone governmental entity, a Title 29 IGA does not allow:
o Ownership of property by the group. All assets must be held in the name of one of the
signers of the IGA.
o Issuance of revenue bonds. All revenue bonds must be issued by one of the signers of
the IGA.
F - 6
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
Provision / Item
Entity
Platte River Power Authority
(Title 29)
South Metro Water Supply Authority
(Title 29)
Southeast Public Improvement District
(Title 32)
Purpose Jointly owned economically self sustaining not-for profit electric utility
that provides affordable, reliable electricity.
In 1973, four municipalities banded together to create a jointly-owned,
economically self-sustaining, not-for-profit electric utility. This action
took the help of the Colorado legislature and the voters in the state.
Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland looked to the Platte
River Power Authority to provide supplemental power beyond their
federal hydropower interests. After a period of time, the four owner
municipalities came to depend on the Platte River Power Authority to
provide the affordable, reliable electricity their citizens had come to rely
upon.
The South Metro Denver water providers, located in Douglas and
Arapahoe Counties, have recognized the need to move away from
reliance upon non-renewable ground water to the development and
reliance upon renewable sources.
Following the failure to obtain approval for the Two Forks Reservoir
project (in western Douglas County), the Douglas County Water
Resource Authority ("DCWRA") was formed. Its purposes were multi-
fold and included outreach, communications, and the search for
renewable water. Around 2000, the DCWRA formed the South Metro
Water Supply Study Board ("Study Board"). In a joint effort with the
Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Denver Water
Board, the Study Board explored conjunctive use and other
opportunities to bring renewable water into Douglas County. In 2004,
the South Metro Water Supply Authority ("SMWSA") was formed and
became the successor to the Study Board.
In the early 2000s, members of The Joint Southeast Public Improvement
Authority (JSPIA - a Title 29 authority formed to jointly fund the
improvements and to work cooperatively on improving the I-25
interchanges in the I-25 and I- 225 area south to the Rampart Range).
JSPIA desired to leverage the cooperation among members and allow a
mill levy to be used to fund future improvements. Together, they formed
the Southeast Public Improvements Metropolitan District ("SPIMD").
SPIMD has partnered with the Denver South Economic Development
Partnership (a traditional economic development entity) and the
Transportation Management Association (TMA) to create a "three-legged
stool" to support the economic and public improvement health of the
Tech Center. Of particular note, SPIMD was instrumental in the
extending light rail into the Tech Center, funding the construction of the
pedestrian bridges across I-25 to allow connections from the light rail
parking to the trains, and creating, planning, and funding circulator buses
throughout the Tech Center.
Parties Four (4):
• Town of Estes Park
• City of Fort Collins
• City of Longmont
• City of Loveland
Fourteen (14):
• Town of Castle Rock
• Centennial Water & Sanitation District
Appendix F
Case Studies and Governance Model Information
Provision / Item
Entity
Platte River Power Authority
(Title 29)
South Metro Water Supply Authority
(Title 29)
Southeast Public Improvement District
(Title 32)
• Terms of Office:
- Mayor (or appointee) so long as that person is the Mayor
- The legislatively appointed directors – rotating 4 year terms
• Removal and Vacancies - up to the appointing entity
• Quorum = simple majority
• each "other provider" appoints a representative
• annually, the representatives of the other providers meet
to elect the other provider Board Member and an
alternate
• Terms of Office
- four large participants – the pleasure of their appointing Board
- other participant/alternate – 1 year with no term limits
• Removal and Vacancies - up to the appointing entity or other
participants
• Quorum = simple majority
• Quorum = simple majority
Withdrawal /
Termination
Provisions
• Term of the Contract: 12/31/2050
• Termination/Withdrawal allowed with:
- 12 month notice
- amendment approved by all Municipalities
• Termination prohibited if bonds outstanding
• Distribution of assets upon termination is pro-rata using specified
formula.
• Term of the Contract: Perpetual (unique to water supply contracts)
though members can withdraw at any time.
• Termination requires unanimous consent of all Participants.
• Distribution of Assets upon Termination:
- to all Participants pro-rata using the following formula:
2/3 equally to the four largest Participants
1/3 equally to the Other Participants
• Exclusion from the District is governed by statute.
• Dissolution of the District is governed by statute and requires
approval of eligible electors.
Other Unique
Provisions
Under Article 2.1(iii), provides broad authority that upon receipt of
approval of each Municipality will "provide additional designated
function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to any combination of
two or more of the Municipalities, provided that these constitute an
'enterprise' " under TABOR. This additional flexibility allows the
Authority to adapt without fully amending the Organic Contract
Deadlock – because there is an even number of directors, a deadlock
is a possibility. Weighted Voting based on the following fraction:
$ Amount of electric power/energy purchased by the
Municipality in last 12 mo.
/
Total $ amount of all electric power/energy purchase from the
100 Fillmore Street, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80206
Imagine the result
Authority in last 12 months
Each Director gets one-half of the amount for the Director's
Municipality from the formula set forth above.
Western Area Power Administration General Power Contract
Provisions – all members of the Authority are bound by this Contract.
The board must unanimously approve the expenditure of more than
$20,000 for the investigation of any project (renewable water, pipeline,
supply, etc.). If unanimous approval cannot be reached, investigation
can proceed under a participation agreement where only the interested
members (that is, the participants) fund the investigation and project.
No member can be required to participate in any particular project.
• Residential property is excluded before there are any sales to
general homeowners.
• SPIMD is permitted to spend tax money on economic development.
F - 8
• Parker Water & Sanitation District
• Cottonwood Water & Sanitation District
• Stonegate Village Metropolitan District
• Meridian Metropolitan District
• Dominion Water & Sanitation District
• Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
• Castle Pines Metropolitan District
• Pinery Water & Wastewater District
• Rangeview Metropolitan District
• Inverness Water & Sanitation District
• East Cherry Creek Valley Water
• Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater & Sanitation District
Authority
Commercial property owners within the SPIMD boundaries and approved
by all "governing entities" within the District Boundaries:
• Denver
• Arapahoe County
• Douglas County
• Greenwood Village
• City of Centennial
• Lone Tree
Organizational
Documents
• "Amended and Restated Organic Contract Establishing Platte
River Power Authority as a Separate Governmental Entity"
(9/1/2010)
• 1998 declared an "enterprise" for purposes of Section 20, Article X
of the Colorado Constitution (TABOR)
• Separate Contracts of the Supply of Electric Power and Energy
with each of the participating entities
• "First Amended and Restated South Metro Water Supply Authority
Intergovernmental Agreement" dated January 1, 2006
• Traditional Metropolitan District Service Plan.
• Intergovernmental Agreement with all of the counties and
municipalities.
Statutory
Authority
• 29-1-204, C.R.S. – Authority of municipalities to establish a
separate governmental entity, specifically a power authority.
• 29-1-204.2, C.R.S. – Authority of municipalities, special districts, or
other political subdivisions to establish a separate governmental
entity, specifically a water authority.
• 32-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. – Special District Act
Management
Provisions
• The governing body is a eight (8) member Board of Directors.
• Two (2) members selected by each participating municipality:
- Mayor (or the mayor's designee)
- Governing body of each Municipality appoints the other
• The governing body is a five (5) member Board of Directors.
- Four (4) appointed from the largest water providers (measured
in SFEs served) by the governing body of the water provider
- One (1) from the remaining water providers
• The governing body is a five (5) member Board of Directors elected
at-large.
• Terms of Office – four (4) years as set by statute
• Removal and Vacancies – by statute
F - 7
2043 44% 33% 26%
2044 42% 32% 24%
2045 41% 31% 23%
General Assumptions
RWCC Regional Collaboration Model v1.7_AAR_Final 8/29/2014
E - 19
Total Personnel $ - $ -
Other
Education & Training $ - $ -
Other Prof & Tech Services $ - $ -
Vehicle Repair $ - $ -
Hardware Mtn & Support $ - $ -
Software Mtn & Support $ - $ -
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ - $ -
C - 12
Employees Group Life Ins $ 468
Long-term Disability
Other Personnel Costs
Total Personnel $ 358,704
Board, Legal Audit
Directors Expenses $ 22,000
Legal Services $ 15,000
Audit Services $ 10,000
Engineering Services $ 16,000
Total Board, Legal Audit $ 63,000
C - 11
Lab Equipment $ 7,000 $ -
Plant Equipment $ - $ 70,000
Facilities Repair $ - $ 56,000
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ - $ -
Leased Equip $ - $ -
Mileage $ - $ -
Conference & Travel $ - $ -
Other Employee Travel $ - $ -
Copy & Reprod Serv $ - $ -
Postage & Freight $ - $ -
Dues & Subscription Services $ - $ -
Advertising Serv $ - $ -
C - 10
Total Personnel $ 318,719
Other
Education & Training $ -
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 515
Vehicle Repair $ 2,678
Hardware Mtn & Support $ 3,300
Software Mtn & Support $ 8,000
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ -
C - 8
Employees Group Life Ins $ 262
Long-term Disability $ 687
Other Personnel Costs $ 2,854
Total Personnel $ 190,833
Board, Legal Audit
Directors Expenses $ -
Legal Services $ -
Audit Services $ -
Engineering Services $ -
Total Board, Legal Audit $ -
C - 7
Lab Equipment $ - $ -
Plant Equipment $ - $ -
Facilities Repair $ - $ -
Fleet Service Equip Charges $ - $ -
Leased Equip $ - $ 10,000
Mileage $ 500 $ -
Conference & Travel $ 20,000 $ -
Other Employee Travel $ 100 $ -
Copy & Reprod Serv $ 200 $ -
Postage & Freight $ 100 $ -
Dues & Subscription Services $ 30,000 $ -
Advertising Serv $ - $ -
C - 6
$ 807,001 $ 839,281 $ 872,852 $ 1,059,061 $ 1,101,423 $ 1,145,480 $ 1,191,299 $ 1,238,951 $ 1,288,509 $ 1,340,050 $ 1,625,927 $ 1,690,964 $ 1,758,602 $ 1,828,947
$ 1,170,429 $ 1,217,246 $ 1,265,936 $ 1,536,002 $ 1,597,442 $ 1,661,340 $ 1,727,794 $ 1,796,905 $ 1,868,782 $ 1,943,533 $ 2,358,153 $ 2,452,479 $ 2,550,579 $ 2,652,602
$ 8,438,256 $ 8,775,786 $ 9,126,818 $ 11,073,872 $ 11,516,827 $ 11,977,500 $ 12,456,600 $ 12,954,864 $ 13,473,059 $ 14,011,981 $ 17,001,204 $ 17,681,252 $ 18,388,502 $ 19,124,042
$ 8,010,840 $ 8,331,274 $ 8,664,524 $ 9,011,105 $ 9,371,550 $ 10,409,433 $ 10,825,810 $ 11,258,843 $ 11,709,196 $ 12,177,564 $ 12,664,667 $ 14,010,187 $ 14,570,594 $ 15,153,418
$ 4,673,090 $ 4,860,013 $ 5,054,414 $ 5,256,591 $ 5,466,854 $ 6,072,299 $ 6,315,191 $ 6,567,799 $ 6,830,510 $ 7,103,731 $ 7,387,880 $ 8,172,784 $ 8,499,695 $ 8,839,683
$ 1,242,784 $ 1,292,496 $ 1,344,196 $ 1,397,963 $ 1,453,882 $ 1,614,897 $ 1,679,493 $ 1,746,672 $ 1,816,539 $ 1,889,201 $ 1,964,769 $ 2,173,510 $ 2,260,450 $ 2,350,868
$ 1,720,480 $ 1,789,299 $ 1,860,871 $ 1,935,306 $ 2,012,718 $ 2,235,623 $ 2,325,048 $ 2,418,050 $ 2,514,772 $ 2,615,363 $ 2,719,978 $ 3,008,953 $ 3,129,312 $ 3,254,484
$ 264,196 $ 274,764 $ 285,755 $ 297,185 $ 309,072 $ 343,301 $ 357,033 $ 371,315 $ 386,167 $ 401,614 $ 417,679 $ 462,054 $ 480,536 $ 499,757
$ 4,409,806 $ 4,586,198 $ 4,769,646 $ 4,960,432 $ 5,158,849 $ 5,730,183 $ 5,959,390 $ 6,197,766 $ 6,445,677 $ 6,703,504 $ 6,971,644 $ 7,712,326 $ 8,020,819 $ 8,341,651
$ 4,756,311 $ 4,946,564 $ 5,144,426 $ 5,350,203 $ 5,564,211 $ 6,180,438 $ 6,427,656 $ 6,684,762 $ 6,952,152 $ 7,230,238 $ 7,519,448 $ 8,318,330 $ 8,651,063 $ 8,997,105
$ 25,077,507 $ 26,080,608 $ 27,123,832 $ 28,208,785 $ 29,337,137 $ 32,586,175 $ 33,889,621 $ 35,245,206 $ 36,655,015 $ 38,121,215 $ 39,646,064 $ 43,858,142 $ 45,612,468 $ 47,436,967
30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$ 5,907,387 $ 6,143,682 $ 6,389,429 $ 6,645,007 $ 6,910,807 $ 7,676,167 $ 7,983,214 $ 8,302,542 $ 8,634,644 $ 8,980,030 $ 9,339,231 $ 10,331,450 $ 10,744,708 $ 11,174,496
$ 3,446,049 $ 3,583,891 $ 3,727,247 $ 3,876,337 $ 4,031,390 $ 4,477,860 $ 4,656,974 $ 4,843,253 $ 5,036,983 $ 5,238,463 $ 5,448,001 $ 6,026,808 $ 6,267,880 $ 6,518,595
$ 916,459 $ 953,118 $ 991,242 $ 1,030,892 $ 1,072,128 $ 1,190,864 $ 1,238,498 $ 1,288,038 $ 1,339,560 $ 1,393,142 $ 1,448,868 $ 1,602,799 $ 1,666,911 $ 1,733,587
$ 1,268,723 $ 1,319,472 $ 1,372,251 $ 1,427,141 $ 1,484,227 $ 1,648,603 $ 1,714,547 $ 1,783,128 $ 1,854,454 $ 1,928,632 $ 2,005,777 $ 2,218,875 $ 2,307,630 $ 2,399,935
$ 194,825 $ 202,618 $ 210,722 $ 219,151 $ 227,917 $ 253,159 $ 263,285 $ 273,816 $ 284,769 $ 296,160 $ 308,006 $ 340,729 $ 354,359 $ 368,533
$ 3,251,897 $ 3,381,973 $ 3,517,252 $ 3,657,942 $ 3,804,260 $ 4,225,575 $ 4,394,598 $ 4,570,382 $ 4,753,197 $ 4,943,325 $ 5,141,058 $ 5,687,255 $ 5,914,745 $ 6,151,335
$ 3,507,419 $ 3,647,715 $ 3,793,624 $ 3,945,369 $ 4,103,184 $ 4,557,604 $ 4,739,908 $ 4,929,505 $ 5,126,685 $ 5,331,752 $ 5,545,022 $ 6,134,137 $ 6,379,502 $ 6,634,682
$ 18,492,759 $ 19,232,469 $ 20,001,768 $ 20,801,839 $ 21,633,912 $ 24,029,831 $ 24,991,025 $ 25,990,666 $ 27,030,292 $ 28,111,504 $ 29,235,964 $ 32,342,052 $ 33,635,734 $ 34,981,164
C - 4
$ 1,295,757 $ 1,347,587 $ 1,401,491 $ 1,457,550 $ 1,515,852 $ 1,576,486 $ 1,639,546 $ 1,705,128 $ 1,773,333 $ 1,844,266 $ 1,918,037 $ 1,994,758 $ 2,074,548 $ 2,157,530 $ 2,243,832 $
2,333,585 $ 2,426,928
$ 448,864 $ 466,819 $ 485,491 $ 504,911 $ 525,107 $ 546,112 $ 567,956 $ 590,674 $ 614,301 $ 638,873 $ 664,428 $ 691,006 $ 718,646 $ 747,392 $ 777,287 $ 808,379 $ 840,714
$ 311,753 $ 324,223 $ 337,192 $ 350,680 $ 364,707 $ 379,295 $ 394,467 $ 410,245 $ 426,655 $ 443,721 $ 461,470 $ 479,929 $ 499,126 $ 519,091 $ 539,855 $ 561,449 $ 583,907
$ 56,271 $ 58,522 $ 60,863 $ 63,298 $ 65,829 $ 68,463 $ 71,201 $ 74,049 $ 77,011 $ 80,092 $ 83,295 $ 86,627 $ 90,092 $ 93,696 $ 97,444 $ 101,341 $ 105,395
$ 1,677,761 $ 1,744,871 $ 1,814,666 $ 1,887,253 $ 1,962,743 $ 2,041,252 $ 2,122,902 $ 2,207,819 $ 2,296,131 $ 2,387,977 $ 2,483,496 $ 2,582,835 $ 2,686,149 $ 2,793,595 $ 2,905,339 $
3,021,552 $ 3,142,414
$ 1,677,575 $ 1,744,678 $ 1,814,465 $ 1,887,043 $ 1,962,525 $ 2,041,026 $ 2,122,667 $ 2,207,574 $ 2,295,877 $ 2,387,712 $ 2,483,220 $ 2,582,549 $ 2,685,851 $ 2,793,285 $ 2,905,016 $
3,021,217 $ 3,142,066
$ 7,847,314 $ 8,161,207 $ 8,487,655 $ 8,827,161 $ 9,180,248 $ 9,547,457 $ 9,929,356 $ 10,326,530 $ 10,739,591 $ 11,169,175 $ 11,615,942 $ 12,080,580 $ 12,563,803 $ 13,066,355 $ 13,589,009
$ 14,132,569 $ 14,697,872
$ 1,313,569 $ 1,366,112 $ 1,420,756 $ 1,477,586 $ 1,536,690 $ 1,598,157 $ 1,662,084 $ 1,728,567 $ 1,797,710 $ 2,181,221 $ 2,268,470 $ 2,359,209 $ 2,453,577 $ 2,551,720 $ 2,653,789 $
2,759,941 $ 2,870,338
$ 858,483 $ 892,822 $ 928,535 $ 965,676 $ 1,004,303 $ 1,044,475 $ 1,086,254 $ 1,129,704 $ 1,174,893 $ 1,425,536 $ 1,482,558 $ 1,541,860 $ 1,603,535 $ 1,667,676 $ 1,734,383 $ 1,803,758
$ 1,875,909
$ 124,045 $ 129,007 $ 134,167 $ 139,534 $ 145,115 $ 150,920 $ 156,956 $ 163,235 $ 169,764 $ 205,980 $ 214,220 $ 222,788 $ 231,700 $ 240,968 $ 250,607 $ 260,631 $ 271,056
$ 481,368 $ 500,623 $ 520,648 $ 541,474 $ 563,133 $ 585,658 $ 609,084 $ 633,448 $ 658,786 $ 799,326 $ 831,300 $ 864,552 $ 899,134 $ 935,099 $ 972,503 $ 1,011,403 $ 1,051,859
$ 65,520 $ 68,141 $ 70,866 $ 73,701 $ 76,649 $ 79,715 $ 82,904 $ 86,220 $ 89,669 $ 108,798 $ 113,150 $ 117,676 $ 122,383 $ 127,278 $ 132,369 $ 137,664 $ 143,171
$ 355,108 $ 369,312 $ 384,085 $ 399,448 $ 415,426 $ 432,043 $ 449,325 $ 467,298 $ 485,990 $ 589,668 $ 613,254 $ 637,785 $ 663,296 $ 689,828 $ 717,421 $ 746,118 $ 775,962
$ 515,029 $ 535,630 $ 557,055 $ 579,337 $ 602,511 $ 626,611 $ 651,676 $ 677,743 $ 704,852 $ 855,221 $ 889,430 $ 925,007 $ 962,007 $ 1,000,488 $ 1,040,507 $ 1,082,127 $ 1,125,412
$ 3,713,121 $ 3,861,646 $ 4,016,112 $ 4,176,757 $ 4,343,827 $ 4,517,580 $ 4,698,283 $ 4,886,214 $ 5,081,663 $ 6,165,751 $ 6,412,381 $ 6,668,876 $ 6,935,631 $ 7,213,057 $ 7,501,579 $
7,801,642 $ 8,113,708
$ 3,692,903 $ 3,840,619 $ 3,994,244 $ 4,154,013 $ 4,320,174 $ 4,492,981 $ 4,672,700 $ 4,859,608 $ 5,053,993 $ 5,256,152 $ 5,466,398 $ 5,685,054 $ 5,912,456 $ 6,148,955 $ 6,394,913 $
7,406,472 $ 7,702,731
$ 2,154,239 $ 2,240,409 $ 2,330,025 $ 2,423,226 $ 2,520,155 $ 2,620,962 $ 2,725,800 $ 2,834,832 $ 2,948,225 $ 3,066,154 $ 3,188,801 $ 3,316,353 $ 3,449,007 $ 3,586,967 $ 3,730,446 $
4,320,534 $ 4,493,356
$ 572,909 $ 595,825 $ 619,658 $ 644,445 $ 670,222 $ 697,031 $ 724,913 $ 753,909 $ 784,065 $ 815,428 $ 848,045 $ 881,967 $ 917,246 $ 953,936 $ 992,093 $ 1,149,024 $ 1,194,985
$ 793,121 $ 824,846 $ 857,840 $ 892,153 $ 927,839 $ 964,953 $ 1,003,551 $ 1,043,693 $ 1,085,441 $ 1,128,858 $ 1,174,013 $ 1,220,973 $ 1,269,812 $ 1,320,605 $ 1,373,429 $ 1,590,680 $
1,654,308
$ 121,791 $ 126,663 $ 131,729 $ 136,999 $ 142,479 $ 148,178 $ 154,105 $ 160,269 $ 166,680 $ 173,347 $ 180,281 $ 187,492 $ 194,992 $ 202,792 $ 210,903 $ 244,264 $ 254,035
$ 2,032,869 $ 2,114,183 $ 2,198,751 $ 2,286,701 $ 2,378,169 $ 2,473,295 $ 2,572,227 $ 2,675,116 $ 2,782,121 $ 2,893,406 $ 3,009,142 $ 3,129,508 $ 3,254,688 $ 3,384,876 $ 3,520,271 $
4,077,114 $ 4,240,198
$ 2,192,603 $ 2,280,308 $ 2,371,520 $ 2,466,381 $ 2,565,036 $ 2,667,637 $ 2,774,343 $ 2,885,316 $ 3,000,729 $ 3,120,758 $ 3,245,589 $ 3,375,412 $ 3,510,429 $ 3,650,846 $ 3,796,880 $
4,397,477 $ 4,573,376
$ 11,560,435 $ 12,022,853 $ 12,503,767 $ 13,003,918 $ 13,524,074 $ 14,065,037 $ 14,627,639 $ 15,212,744 $ 15,821,254 $ 16,454,104 $ 17,112,269 $ 17,796,759 $ 18,508,630 $ 19,248,975
$ 20,018,934 $ 23,185,565 $ 24,112,988
3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 12.0% 15.0% 18.0% 21.0% 24.0% 27.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%
3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$ 3,582,116 $ 3,613,638 $ 3,645,438 $ 3,677,518 $ 3,709,880 $ 3,742,527 $ 3,775,462 $ 3,808,686 $ 3,842,202 $ 3,876,013 $ 4,031,054 $ 4,192,296 $ 4,359,988 $ 4,534,388 $ 4,715,763 $
5,461,711 $ 5,680,179
$ 2,089,612 $ 2,108,001 $ 2,126,551 $ 2,145,265 $ 2,164,143 $ 2,183,188 $ 2,202,400 $ 2,221,781 $ 2,241,332 $ 2,261,056 $ 2,351,498 $ 2,445,558 $ 2,543,381 $ 2,645,116 $ 2,750,921 $
3,186,066 $ 3,313,509
$ 555,722 $ 560,612 $ 565,545 $ 570,522 $ 575,543 $ 580,608 $ 585,717 $ 590,871 $ 596,071 $ 601,316 $ 625,369 $ 650,384 $ 676,399 $ 703,455 $ 731,593 $ 847,318 $ 881,211
$ 769,327 $ 776,097 $ 782,927 $ 789,817 $ 796,767 $ 803,779 $ 810,852 $ 817,988 $ 825,186 $ 832,447 $ 865,745 $ 900,375 $ 936,390 $ 973,846 $ 1,012,800 $ 1,173,006 $ 1,219,926
$ 118,138 $ 119,177 $ 120,226 $ 121,284 $ 122,351 $ 123,428 $ 124,514 $ 125,610 $ 126,715 $ 127,830 $ 132,943 $ 138,261 $ 143,792 $ 149,543 $ 155,525 $ 180,126 $ 187,331
$ 1,971,883 $ 1,989,235 $ 2,006,740 $ 2,024,400 $ 2,042,214 $ 2,060,186 $ 2,078,316 $ 2,096,605 $ 2,115,055 $ 2,133,667 $ 2,219,014 $ 2,307,775 $ 2,400,086 $ 2,496,089 $ 2,595,933 $
3,006,562 $ 3,126,824
$ 2,126,825 $ 2,145,541 $ 2,164,422 $ 2,183,469 $ 2,202,684 $ 2,222,067 $ 2,241,621 $ 2,261,348 $ 2,281,247 $ 2,301,322 $ 2,393,375 $ 2,489,110 $ 2,588,675 $ 2,692,222 $ 2,799,911 $
3,242,806 $ 3,372,518
$ 11,213,622 $ 11,312,302 $ 11,411,851 $ 11,512,275 $ 11,613,583 $ 11,715,782 $ 11,818,881 $ 11,922,887 $ 12,027,809 $ 12,133,654 $ 12,619,000 $ 13,123,760 $ 13,648,710 $ 14,194,658
$ 14,762,445 $ 17,097,595 $ 17,781,499
C - 3
1,711,233 $ 1,788,714
$ 1,833,987 $ 1,855,754 $ 1,878,776 $ 1,903,048 $ 1,928,566 $ 1,955,328 $ 1,984,902 $ 2,015,700 $ 2,047,732 $ 2,081,177 $ 2,189,909 $ 2,308,973 $ 2,434,763 $ 2,567,663 $ 2,708,077 $
3,181,031 $ 3,359,227
$ 11,213,622 $ 11,312,302 $ 11,411,851 $ 11,512,275 $ 11,613,583 $ 11,715,782 $ 11,818,881 $ 11,922,887 $ 12,027,809 $ 12,133,654 $ 12,619,000 $ 13,123,760 $ 13,648,710 $ 14,194,658
$ 14,762,445 $ 17,097,595 $ 17,781,499
C - 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 0 0 0 82,479,793 0 0
0 0 0 0 (82,479,793) 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 69,075,528 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 (69,075,528) 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 46,000,000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 47,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 47,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 47,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 79,724,138 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 31,159,348 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 (31,159,348) 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 79,724,138 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 6
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
NWCWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
NWCWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 8,007,747 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 72,069,722 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,007,747 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 (8,007,747) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 72,069,722 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 (48,118,993) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 23,950,729 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 10,468,307 0 0 0
B - 4
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
NWCWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
NWCWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 6,511,031 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 19,533,093 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 39,066,186 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 6,511,031 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 (6,511,031) 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 19,533,093 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 (19,533,093) 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 39,066,186 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 (39,066,186) 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 3
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
NWCWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
NWCWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted)
PIF Revenue Adjustment
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation)
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation)
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 31,724,138 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 32,224,138 500,000 500,000 500,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 32,224,138 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 32,224,138 500,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 46,000,000 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 47,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 47,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 47,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
0 0 4,703,707 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 37,629,659 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4,703,707 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4,703,707 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 (2,924,333) 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1,779,374 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1,324,021 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 37,629,659 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 (23,907,702) 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 13,721,956 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 10,210,424 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4,703,707 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 (4,703,707) 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 2
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation) 0 8,743,155 0 0 0 0 0
NWCWD Expansion
Gross SCFP Expansion (inflation adjusted) 0 0 0 0 0 8,309,257 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 (2,573,066) 0
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 5,736,191 0
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation) 0 0 0 0 0 4,803,970 0
NWCWD Expansion Purchases
Gross Additional Capacity (inflation adjusted) 0 0 0 13,112,178 0 0 0
PIF Revenue Adjustment 0 0 0 (3,331,749) 0 0 0
Net Additional Capacity (after inflation) 0 0 0 9,780,429 0 0 0
Net Additional Capacity (before inflation) 0 0 0 8,689,784 0 0 0
B - 1