Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />1. The capital cost estimates for construction of all facilities. <br />2. The 6% borrolling and ccst of money (discount) rate of the City <br />o.nd County 0 f Denver. <br />3. The 20 year cost escalation to 1998 and constant thereafter. <br />4. The 75 yeaJ: project life. <br />5. The 6% cost escalation for non-electric expense items. <br />6. The non-electric expense estimates. <br />7. The 9% construction cost escalation. <br />8. The pumping kwh required to raise treated water from the mouth <br />of canyon site to the existing distribution system. <br />9. The Foothills baseload of 39,255 mg per year. <br />The contractor recommends that only five of the Corps estimates <br />and assumptions need to be reevaluated; these are the follo,dng. <br />1. The 1978 kwh cost of 3.61. <br />2. The projected 8% rate of electric cost increase. <br />3. The assumption of 75 year bonds at 6%. <br />4. The $22,770,00~ cost assessed to the mouth of canyon alternative for <br />the City of Aurora's South Platte River intake works and treatment <br />plant intertie. <br />5. The sale of excess hydropower at 3.61 per kwh "hen no capital <br />facilities were included for the sale of such power. <br />It is possible that the Denver Hater Board Inll question <br />selected estimates and assumptions of the Corps. Such challenges might <br />entail the 6% escalation rate of the non-electric expense items ( as <br />their recent experience has been higher), the amount of second lift <br />pumping required at the mouth of canyon site ( to accomodate new <br />service areas on the higher land to the South of Denver), etc. For <br />this reason, the sensitivity of important factors in the economic <br />analysis are shol.ffi in this review. The method also allol.Js for the <br />eaGY examin8.tion of other factors that may subsequently be questioned. <br /> <br />, <br />.. <br />.' <br /> <br />00697 · <br />